Tim James Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 I'm a rank amateur so bear with me. This was found in gravel outwash material in northeastern Indiana, along the Wabash river. Any ID help is greatly appreciated. Underside of the previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Hello, and welcome to the Forum. I'm fairly sure that'a colonial Carboniferous coral. Lithostrotion possibly? 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim James Posted October 31, 2017 Author Share Posted October 31, 2017 Thank you. I will study up on that material. Sure do appreciate the info. This area I mentioned is predominantly standard glacial outwash rubble of various modest sized granite and Quartz with some feldspar and chert scattered about. But with a watchful eye there is an assortment of various fossils to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izak_ Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Nice coral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Lithostrotion (Lithostrotionella) is a colonial rugose coral. It has prismatic corallites which I don't see in this specimen. Calyx (plural calces): the bowl-shaped depression or "seat" in which the living polyp resides. Corallite: the skeleton produced by one polyp, which may or may not be part of a colony Epitheca: the outermost skeletal layer of a corallite which sometimes shows growth lines. Non-trabecular skeletal sheath along outside colony margin. Tabula (plural tabulae): a horizontal partition (or floor) dividing the corallite skeleton. Septum (plural septa): vertical blade or partition within the calyx of a corallite that are normally radially arranged. Dissepiment: small curved plate in a corallite near the tabulae that is convex inward and upwards. Mural pores: the small holes in the epitheca of some tabulate corals. Columella: an axial rod in a corallite usually formed by the fusion of two or more septa that typically forms a topographic prominence in the central part of the calyx. For comparison: 3 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 36 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said: Lithostrotion (Lithostrotionella) is a colonial rugose coral. It has prismatic corallites which I don't see in this specimen. Lithostrotion / Lithostrotionella has been reclassified as Acrocyathus: Sando, W.J. (1983) Revision of Lithostrotionella (Coelenterata, Rugosa) from the Carboniferous and Permian. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1247:1-52 PDF LINK Acrocyathus proliferus has cylindrical corallites: quote from: Rodríguez, S., & Kopaska-Merkel, D.C. (2014) Mississippian rugose corals from Alabama: a review. Journal of Paleontology, 88(5):829-850 "However, when sectioned, these specimens show clearly phaceloid habit, with cylindrical corallites." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, piranha said: Lithostrotion / Lithostrotionella has been reclassified as Acrocyathus: Sando, W.J. (1983) Revision of Lithostrotionella (Coelenterata, Rugosa) from the Carboniferous and Permian. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1247:1-52 PDF LINK Acrocyathus proliferus has cylindrical corallites: quote from: Rodríguez, S., & Kopaska-Merkel, D.C. (2014) Mississippian rugose corals from Alabama: a review. Journal of Paleontology, 88(5):829-850 "However, when sectioned, these specimens show clearly phaceloid habit, with cylindrical corallites." Hmmm. I have greatly over-simplified the challenge to identify the coral, but piranha has taken a more aggressive short-cut. Identifying coral like this is always highly speculative. Lithostrotion/Lithostrotionella has been broken into five different families: Acrocyathidae is a new family. "Prismatic corallites" is not used in the 1983 revision, and I don't remember where I learned that character. As Far as I can tell from the information at hand, this coral could be an acrocyathid, one of multiple species. But, it could belong to an entirely different Family. 2 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Harry Pristis said: Hmmm. I have greatly over-simplified the challenge to identify the coral, but piranha has taken a more aggressive short-cut. Identifying coral like this is always highly speculative. Lithostrotion/Lithostrotionella has been broken into five different families: Acrocyathidae is a new family. "Prismatic corallites" is not used in the 1983 revision, and I don't remember where I learned that character. As Far as I can tell from the information at hand, this coral could be an acrocyathid, one of multiple species. But, it could belong to an entirely different Family. Actually, I was not attempting an ID on the posted specimen, only responding to the information you posted. Rodríguez & Kopaska-Merkel 2014 has suppressed "Acrocyathidae" in favor of the Family Lithostrotionidae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 2 hours ago, piranha said: Actually, I was not attempting an ID on the posted specimen, only responding to the information you posted. Rodríguez & Kopaska-Merkel 2014 has suppressed "Acrocyathidae" in favor of the Family Lithostrotionidae. Sooo . . . Then Lithostrotion/Lithostrotionella has been distributed among only four families, and you're not ascribing this example to any of them, only pointing out a possibility. I'm glad we straightened that out. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 16 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said: Sooo . . . Then Lithostrotion/Lithostrotionella has been distributed among only four families, and you're not ascribing this example to any of them, only pointing out a possibility. I'm glad we straightened that out. Not pointing out a possibility, Harry. Pointing out the correct taxonomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, piranha said: Not pointing out a possibility, Harry. Pointing out the correct taxonomy. Your reference to Acrocyathus proliferus having cylindrical corallites, with an illustrated specimen, was misleading then. We thought you recognized the species. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Harry Pristis said: Your reference to Acrocyathus proliferus having cylindrical corallites, with an illustrated specimen, was misleading then. We thought you recognized the species. Please read more carefully. My reference to cylindrical corallites was obviously a rebuttal to your incorrect assertion. 7 hours ago, Harry Pristis said: Lithostrotion (Lithostrotionella) is a colonial rugose coral. It has prismatic corallites which I don't see in this specimen. You claim: "We thought you recognized the species". Who exactly is the "we" consensus? Nothing I posted is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Let's set these contests aside and assist the OP in identifying this coral. What would the OP have to do to better ensure that we have the diagnostic details required to assign an ID? 1 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Well, I still think it's a Carboniferous compound coral Something along the lines of whatever Lithostrotion is called today Or something Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 @TqB @FossilDAWG Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Can we see the end of the specimen, i.e. a transverse section of the corallites? I think the weathering is making it deceptive and that it is a cerioid (honeycomb prismatic) coral as there seems to be no matrix between the corallites. It's probably going to be difficult to ID without a cut section and age though (Devonian, Carboniferous?). Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Unfortunately any serious attempt to ID corals requires thin sections, or at least acetate peels, showing internal structures from both a cross-section and a longitudinal section perspective. Sometimes if the source formation and locality is known, and the coral fauna has been studied recently enough that the taxonomy is not horribly out of date, and the fauna is not too diverse, one can make a reasonable guess by matching the specimen in hand to the species known to occur where the fossil was found. That seems to be not the case here as the fossil was not in situ (not in place in the rock). Without thin or polished sections probably a generalized descriptive term such as "lithostrontid coral" is the best that could be claimed as an ID. Don 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now