Jump to content

Need a cidarid echinoderm ID


KimTexan

Recommended Posts

I found this little jewel a while back, but never found out what species it is. Can anyone tell me what genus species it is?

E89698D4-C3F1-428F-9CDB-EDB811CBCC3C.thumb.jpeg.54a3dabddba86d989d902ea6be3ff814.jpegThis is a close up of an ambulacral and pore area. I don’t think I can get much better on the close up picture quality. I do have a number of pics from other angles if needed.

Thanks in advance for your input. 

ACD24F30-A734-4DF1-A46C-B50C7591EA07.jpeg

F77E1F49-4CCE-4CF1-89F7-F32FD9C3EE44.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just from pics, I think a Cretaceous Temnocidaris (Sterocidaris) sceptrifera.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was it found?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, sorry it was found in the Edwards formation in SE Johnson county, Texas.

Also, it is about 33 mm tall by 54 mm in diameter. The bottom of the test is missing so the height may be a little shorter than it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

@KimTexan

 

According to Thompson, 2016, there are 4 species of Temnocidaris reported in Texas, and of those four, T. sceptrifera is not included. It is found in France, among other places. Also, according to this website, T. sceptrifera is found in Coniacian to Campanian aged sediments, while the Edwards Formation is Lower Upper Albian in age (Morgan 2016). 

 

Of the four species of Temnocidaris reported from Texas, three of them are new species first described in Thompson's book. All four are as follows:

 

Temnocidaris (Hirudocidaris) wenoensis  sp. nov. Lower Cretaceous, Washita Group, Weno Formation. Found in Fort Worth, Tarrant County. 
Temnocidaris (Stereocidaris) borachoensis sp. nov. Lower Cretaceous, Washita Group, Boracho Formation. Found in McCamey, Upton County. 
Temnocidaris (Stereocidaris) hudspethensis (Cooke 1955). Lower Cretaceous, Washita Group; Georgetown, Duck Creek, and Espy Formations. Found in Georgetown, Williamson county; Lake Texoma, Grayson County; Hudspeth County. 
Temnocidaris (Stereocidaris) texanus sp. nov. Unknown Formation. Unknown County. 

 

Note that Thompson does not report there being any species of Temnocidaris from the Edwards formation, which is at the top of the Fredricksberg Group underlying the Washita Group. This could mean one of three things: 

 

First, is it possible that you misidentified the formation from which this specimen came? When I look at a SE Johnson County on the USGS geological map for Texas, the formations in that area appear to be exposed very close together, making misidentification quite easy. The fact that the Edwards Formation is so close to the Washita Formations makes this even more understandable. 

 

Second, this is any species of Temnocidaris from the Edwards Formation, which would be new to science. More specifically, this could be a specimen of the new species T. texanus sp. nov. The formation and the county in which it was found are unknown, and the species its self is only known from spines. Perhaps that species came from the Edwards Formation and this is its up until now unknown test. But that is pure speculation of course. 


Third, this is not a species of Temnocidaris, which I find unlikely. 

 

There are only two species in Thompson's book with their tests shown, T. borachoensis sp. nov. and T. hudspethensis. Now I am a novice when it comes to echinoids (like many other aspects of Paleontology for that matter), but between those two species I would say that T. borachoensis sp. nov. fits the most with your specimen. I am not familiar enough with echinoid jargon to give a technical reason for that conclusion, but suffice it to say the main reasons are that the tubercles appear to be farther apart and the test is less spherical than T. hudspethensis. But this is just my very uninformed opinion. Hopefully @Bill Thompson could shine some light on this matter. 

 

 

Coincidently, just a few days ago on November 29, I was on a fossil hunt with my mother when she found a Temnocidaris specimen in matrix that was brought in from a different location. It is very similar in size (H53 X L36) and condition to yours, with mine missing most of its tubercles and a good part of the top. It also appears to me to be the same species as yours. I will try to post pictures of that specimen within the next week or two. I think that it is from the Boracho Formation and it looks like T. borachoensis sp. nov., but like yours I will see what Bill Thompson and others think of it when I post it.

 

Also, could you post more pictures of this specimen from different angles? That would greatly help in the identification process. 

------------------------------  

References:

 

William R. Thompson, Jr. (2016). Fossil Echinoids of Texas; A Monograph of Fossil Sea Urchins.

 

William W. Morgan (2016). Collector's Guide to Texas Cretaceous Echinoids. 

 

 

 

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stereocidaris Hudspethensis

I don't believe there is any Boracho exposure in Johnson c.

Quite possibly a Georgetown outcropping.

:dinothumb:

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bone2stone said:

Stereocidaris Hudspethensis

I don't believe there is any Boracho exposure in Johnson c.

Quite possibly a Georgetown outcropping.

:dinothumb:

According to the USGS map of Texas, the Georgetown Formation is not exposed in Johnson county. However, there is a Washita Group rock unit that runs very close to the Edwards Formation in Johnson county which USGS describes as, "middle shale and lower limestone units of Weno Limestone, Denton Clay, Fort Worth Limestone, and Duck Creek Formation undivided." In SE Johnson county the Edwards Formation is separated from this rock unit only by a very thin exposure of the Kiamichi Formation. To me this rock unit would be the most likely origin of this echinoid specimen. 

 

The main problem with this being T. hudspethensis is, according to the Thompson's book, T. hudspethensis has not been reported from any of the formations which are in this rock unit. The only species of Temnocidaris reported from one of the formations in this rock unit is T. wenoensis from the Weno Formation, which is only known by its spines with its test having yet to be described. 

 

The reason why in my last post I said that it could be a T. borachoensis specimen is mainly because of how its test looks. What I was thinking, though I didn't really verbalize it, is that this could be a T. borachoensis specimen from a North Texas formation that it was previously unknown to be in instead of the West Texas Boracho Formation which would be correlative in age, like how T. hudspethensis is found in the far West Texas Espy Formation while also being found in the Central Texas Georgetown Formation which correlates to it in age. But that is really just speculation on my part. 

 

This may very well be the test of T. wenoensis. It is hard for me to say, since I am very much not an expert in echinoids at all! But no matter the species it is a beautiful find! Hopefully we can find out more soon. :dinothumb:

 

 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Heteromorph said:

According to the USGS map of Texas, the Georgetown Formation is not exposed in Johnson county. However, there is a Washita Group rock unit that runs very close to the Edwards Formation in Johnson county which USGS describes as, "middle shale and lower limestone units of Weno Limestone, Denton Clay, Fort Worth Limestone, and Duck Creek Formation undivided." In SE Johnson county the Edwards Formation is separated from this rock unit only by a very thin exposure of the Kiamichi Formation. To me this rock unit would be the most likely origin of this echinoid specimen. 

 

The main problem with this being T. hudspethensis is, according to the Thompson's book, T. hudspethensis has not been reported from any of the formations which are in this rock unit. The only species of Temnocidaris reported from one of the formations in this rock unit is T. wenoensis from the Weno Formation, which is only known by its spines with its test having yet to be described. 

 

The reason why in my last post I said that it could be a T. borachoensis specimen is mainly because of how its test looks. What I was thinking, though I didn't really verbalize it, is that this could be a T. borachoensis specimen from a North Texas formation that it was previously unknown to be in instead of the West Texas Boracho Formation which would be correlative in age, like how T. hudspethensis is found in the far West Texas Espy Formation while also being found in the Central Texas Georgetown Formation which correlates to it in age. But that is really just speculation on my part. 

 

This may very well be the test of T. wenoensis. It is hard for me to say, since I am very much not an expert in echinoids at all! But no matter the species it is a beautiful find! Hopefully we can find out more soon. :dinothumb:

 

 

 

Yeah it could be the Ft. Worth stuff. (Wenoensis, that does make sense) I have some partial cidarid material from a weno/main street (overburden dump material) in Ft Worth.

But face facts the ones who know the deposits would need to be there or know the exact location to be absolutely sure.

Otherwise we are just guessing.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bone2stone said:

 

Yeah it could be the Ft. Worth stuff. (Wenoensis, that does make sense) I have some partial cidarid material from a weno/main street (overburden dump material) in Ft Worth.

But face facts the ones who know the deposits would need to be there or know the exact location to be absolutely sure.

Otherwise we are just guessing.

Yeah, unless we get someone very familiar with these deposits or find out its exact location for sure, this is about as far as we can go with this. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments. I do have Morgan’s book.

 

I showed Roger Farish of DPS pics of where I found it and he seemed to agree that it looked like Edwards Formation.

 

The rock is very hard and crystalline filled. There are quite a few rudists looking fossils in the rock formation. See pic.

18EAF509-2E0F-4EF4-86AE-0459A9BBD263.thumb.jpeg.4a44acad5ed3a29729e1f26f38c1bd00.jpeg

The echinoid is of the same hard yellow consistency as this rock.

I tried attaching the pictures of the road cut, but they’re too large. I’ll save them in a smaller format and attach them later.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KimTexan said:

Thank you for your comments. I do have Morgan’s book.

 

I showed Roger Farish of DPS pics of where I found it and he seemed to agree that it looked like Edwards Formation.

 

The rock is very hard and crystalline filled. There are quite a few rudists looking fossils in the rock formation. See pic.

18EAF509-2E0F-4EF4-86AE-0459A9BBD263.thumb.jpeg.4a44acad5ed3a29729e1f26f38c1bd00.jpeg

The echinoid is of the same hard yellow consistency as this rock.

I tried attaching the pictures of the road cut, but they’re too large. I’ll save them in a smaller format and attach them later.

Very interesting. As far as I know, if this is from the Edwards Formation, this would be the first species of Temnocidaris reported from that formation and from the Fredricksberg Group as a whole, which would be new to science! Please keep us updated as to what you find out. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the road cut and where it is situated in comparison to the the rest of the land. The valley below is Hamm Creek.

Does that look like the Edwards?

I will say I actually found it on the ground at the end of the road cut near where you see other rocks. I’m not sure what underlies the Edwards at this place. Usually downhill I find more of what looks like comes from that cut mixed with clams.

06B0E395-77AB-4473-AC8B-12A49A6FCE08.thumb.jpeg.01e17d38f22c149ef1d9dfc528369a98.jpeg

BE869FDE-6F8A-4590-B3C5-C8054B534392.thumb.jpeg.97fb6fb63aabdbb7e5d01aed548509e4.jpeg

Another close up of the cut. There are some really big crystalline bodies in the cut too, like a foot across.

00E137F3-4A0E-480D-8772-8C7077DD4E9F.thumb.jpeg.18b2d62579d5e8bf3d53996c24f961ca.jpeg

 

Up up the hill from here is where I have found a lot of ammonites.

28DC25AF-7BED-4EDB-AA57-6C0BF42CEF4C.thumb.jpeg.cab6c04399624fda109ddae35c18ccd7.jpeg

This is a different formation that at this point is about 5 feet thick which has large ammonites in it. The rock is pretty hard limestone.

This is an ammonite that got away. I didn’t have a hammer with me.

D3165E4A-FDA7-46D6-971D-5CFB37974074.thumb.jpeg.95404405464d8d272fa51dddf5a21f7c.jpeg

It is underlaid by what appears to be a bit different with smaller ammonites, a good variety of small sea shells fairly well preserved with mother of pearl look still on them, I think they are bivalves, but also oysters one that is small and another larger variety that look like Texigraphaea.

The smaller ammonites in this layer are not so well preserved. The soil is very soft and the limestone rock is fairly soft too. There isn’t any crystalline material in these 2 layers though.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KimTexan said:

The rock is very hard and crystalline filled. There are quite a few rudists looking fossils in the rock formation. See pic.

18EAF509-2E0F-4EF4-86AE-0459A9BBD263.thumb.jpeg.4a44acad5ed3a29729e1f26f38c1bd00.jpeg

 

Yep! Those are rudists. Pretty nice! :)

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I’m not sure what underlies the Edwards at this place

According to USGS, the Comanche Peak Formation underlies the Edwards Formation in Johnson county. I am not very familiar with either of these formations so I can't tell you anything about them from personal experience, but if this helps here are two hyperlinked fossil hunting reports from Daniel Woehr ( @Uncle Siphuncle ) that have pictures and information on the overlying Kiamichi Formation, the Edwards Formation, and the underlying Comanche Peak Formation. I have found his entries to be a treasure trove of Texas paleontological insight:

 

FOSSIL AND ARTIFACT COLLECTING REPORT, August 2012. Beginning with Figure 192, there are a good amount of pictures of the Comanche Peak Formation in South Texas. After that there are also pictures of the Walnut Clay Formation which underlies the Comanche Peak Formation. 

 

FOSSIL COLLECTING REPORT, August 2009. Beginning with Figure 15, there are a few pictures of the Kiamichi/ Edwards Formations. This has a bit of information about distinguishing between the Edwards and the Kiamichi Formations using fossils. 

 

And here are two websites that I found with information on the Edwards Formation: 

 

Guidebook to the Geology of Travis County. Chapter 2: Rocks of the Austin Area 

 

http://northtexasfossils.com/edwards.htm 

 

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Siphuncle

The Edwards is lithologically different in north TX than what I see in South TX, but your little road cut looks like Edwards to me.  If the crenulated shell is a Chondrodonta in one pic, that helps finger the Edwards.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know how the other ciradids are, but this one is very solid and heavy. It is in large part crystalline. 

I’m not sure what other pics you want of it. The test of the bottom and half of one side is missing. Here are a number more from all sides.

You can see on the left of this pic the crystalline structure of one of the tubercles  that is broken. The whole test is of that nature. Also the next one is a good shot of the crystal structure.

F6DD65C8-451E-4240-B0FC-1BB13CABCBFF.thumb.jpeg.b8bbe7d762fd0aba20a488361bb759e7.jpeg

16880303-3A55-4604-8CA4-23F9E8E29592.thumb.jpeg.5f741f5e4d41b7d8d4223d8cdfb22c54.jpeg

 

I have read read the description of the Edwards before. I have a copy of The Geology of Texas volume 1.

 

5 hours ago, abyssunder said:

Yep! Those are rudists. Pretty nice! :)

Did you see the circular rings above the long tube structure in the pic? They were crystalline white and very pretty. I think you need a rock saw to cut stuff out of that rock face. It is very hard. I would have like to have taken them home. I wanted the large structure there too, but I didn’t have a hammer with me. I’m not sure how much good a hammer would do with that kind of rock.

901468DD-3437-42C5-8DA1-D52C2BE0AE98.jpeg

A9D0CBAF-9D70-4E90-A233-6435511E9D1B.jpeg

B63F07E2-D8CD-4FE5-A55A-6F35F4775DE3.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Bill Thompson

Beautiful echinoid.

 

I used my book Fossil Echinoids of Texas for identification.

 

Kim's cidarid:

"Ambs extremely narrow, very flexuous.  Interambs very wide, made up of two rows of large prominent plates"

 

From the Edwards Formation = Trinity Group.

 

Kim's specimen looks to be:

Phyllacanthus tysoni  Whitney & Kellum, 1966

This echinoid is one of the very few that is not photographed in my book.  (The University of Michigan repeatly said that they were going to send me photographs of this specimen, but after waiting well over a year, I gave up.  I offered to fly to Michigan, but they insisted that they would send me the photos.)

 

Great find.

 

I will be doing an addendum to my book and releasing it in 2018.  I would love to photograph this specimen.

Please send me a PM if you are amenable.  Thank you.

 

Bill Thompson

 

  • I found this Informative 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bill Thompson said:

...

From the Edwards Formation = Trinity Group.

 

Kim's specimen looks to be:

Phyllacanthus tysoni  Whitney & Kellum, 1966

.Bill Thompson

 

Just FYI, the Edwards Formation is well up in the Fredericksburg Group, not the Trinity. Trinity is older.  It certainly resembles the specimens illustrated by Whitney and Kellum although those are not great.  

  • I found this Informative 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill Thompson said:

Beautiful echinoid.

 

I used my book Fossil Echinoids of Texas for identification.

 

Kim's cidarid:

"Ambs extremely narrow, very flexuous.  Interambs very wide, made up of two rows of large prominent plates"

 

From the Edwards Formation = Trinity Group.

 

Kim's specimen looks to be:

Phyllacanthus tysoni  Whitney & Kellum, 1966

This echinoid is one of the very few that is not photographed in my book.  (The University of Michigan repeatly said that they were going to send me photographs of this specimen, but after waiting well over a year, I gave up.  I offered to fly to Michigan, but they insisted that they would send me the photos.)

 

Great find.

 

I will be doing an addendum to my book and releasing it in 2018.  I would love to photograph this specimen.

Please send me a PM if you are amenable.  Thank you.

 

Bill Thompson

 

Wait. According to your book Phyllacanthus tysoni is only reported from the Lower Albian Glen Rose Formation in the Trinity Group while, as erose pointed out, this specimen is from the Upper Albian Edwards Formation at the top of the Fredricksberg Group. To your knowledge, is this specimen a first for this formation and group, just as my Temnocidaris hudspethensis specimen could be as well?

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, erose said:

Just FYI, the Edwards Formation is well up in the Fredericksburg Group, not the Trinity. Trinity is older.  It certainly resembles the specimens illustrated by Whitney and Kellum although those are not great.  

Well said, Erich @erose.  Attention to detail is critical to accurate paleontology.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bill Thompson said:

Beautiful echinoid.

 

I used my book Fossil Echinoids of Texas for identification.

 

Kim's cidarid:

"Ambs extremely narrow, very flexuous.  Interambs very wide, made up of two rows of large prominent plates"

 

From the Edwards Formation = Trinity Group.

 

Kim's specimen looks to be:

Phyllacanthus tysoni  Whitney & Kellum, 1966

This echinoid is one of the very few that is not photographed in my book.  (The University of Michigan repeatly said that they were going to send me photographs of this specimen, but after waiting well over a year, I gave up.  I offered to fly to Michigan, but they insisted that they would send me the photos.)

 

Great find.

 

I will be doing an addendum to my book and releasing it in 2018.  I would love to photograph this specimen.

Please send me a PM if you are amenable.  Thank you.

 

Bill Thompson

 

@KimTexan nice find Kim.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heteromorph said:

Wait. According to your book Phyllacanthus tysoni is only reported from the Lower Albian Glen Rose Formation in the Trinity Group while, as erose pointed out, this specimen is from the Upper Albian Edwards Formation at the top of the Fredricksberg Group. To your knowledge, is this specimen a first for this formation and group, just as my Temnocidaris hudspethensis specimen could be as well?

I have been wondering the same thing for quite a while now.

@Heteromorph, I must have missed something somewhere. I thought yours and mine were the same genus species. Was yours confirmed to be Temnocidaris?

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...