Something Really Weird in My Coprolite!

[GeschWhat]

Welcome to another microscopic look into the wonderful world of coprolites. Here we have a squished (flattened) spiral coprolite from the prehistoric floodplains that now form the Bull Canyon Formation in the badlands of Quay County, New Mexico. Today's mystery was most likely not ingested. Many times the posterior (non-pinched end) of spiral coprolites can be hollow. I may be wrong, but I think this branchy thing (for lack of a better term) slipped in after it was expelled. To me this looks like part of a branch from a delicate coral - but the poop was in fresh water. Any ideas? 

[Tidgy's Dad]

I can't tell what the inclusion is, but even if it were a coral,it could have been eaten along with something else by mistake. 

Tiny fragment of bone, maybe?

[GeschWhat]

Thanks for looking @Tidgy's Dad. It is kind of hard to see in the photo, but whatever it is has at least three little branches coming off of it. Here is my sorry attempt at tracing it. It does not react to vinegar, but the surrounding dark matrix does. Are there any freshwater fish bones that you know of that look like that?

[Tidgy's Dad]

Indeed not, but a swallowed piece of coral or bryozoan or something still a possibility ?

[ynot]

Neat looking piece.

Two thoughts.

A shark that was eating bryozoans or other sheledl animals.

[GeschWhat]

Are bryozoans/corals found in fresh water?

[ynot]

1 minute ago, GeschWhat said:

Are bryozoans/corals found in fresh water?

Bryozoans are found in freshwater, but I do not know of any fresh water corals.

[Tidgy's Dad]

i have found several bits of fossil coral in river areas or lake sides. what I was trying to say is that just because it's a freshwater coprolite doesn't entirely rule out the possibility of the creature having gobble a coral. many animals eat rock pieces from the substrate. Also some fish, like salmon, could be in sea water at one time and then move to fresh water. It's just as likely as a freshwater bryozoan. only one class of bryozoan, the Phylactolaemata, occur in fresh water and fossils are extremely rare.  

[GeschWhat]

I know very little about corals or bryozoa, other than what they look line in Ordovician hash plates. This is all very interesting. Thank you both so much for enlightening me. I had no idea they even exist(ed) in fresh water. Thank you so much @Tidgy's Dad for giving me a name to start with. That always helps!

[Tidgy's Dad]

Bless you, but I doubt if it's of much help, what you have is probably something else entirely! 

[GeschWhat]

Maybe, but I am liking the freshwater bryozoan theory. I was just reading that fish do eat the modern variety. 

[GeschWhat]

I had contacted a modern bryozoan expert, Dr. Timothy Woods. He does not think this is a freshwater bryozoan for the following reason:

 

"The size is about right and the tubules appear to be hollow, but unfortunately these are not freshwater bryozoans. The most obvious clue is the difference in diameter between the main trunk and the side branches. In freshwater bryozoans all tubules have about the same diameter regardless of their age. Also in the photo showing two side branches they come off at the same angle. In freshwater bryozoans this would very seldom happen. "

 

He suggested "crustacean appendage with spines, or a pinnate structure like a feather or plant part" as possibilities. 

 

Thoughts?

 

I have included additional photos that I took recently with a digital microscope. 

 

 

[GeschWhat]

[ynot]

 

Nice pictures though.

[GeschWhat]

Thanks, Tony. I decided to outline the structure, just in case it helps. 

[GeschWhat]

I just heard back from a scientist in France who had written a paper on primitive feathers found in amber. I think that theory is out:

 

"I don’t think it can be a feather fragment. It would be very unusual for a feather to be mineralized like this. Also, the small branches as outlined do not match the morphology of barbs diverging from a rachis: they should be inserted opposite on a single plane, not emerging from a sort of socket as in your outlined fig., and the space between two barbs is a bit too wide."

 

I have contacted a paleobiologist to see if plant material is likely. Ugh!

[abyssunder]

Maybe an echinoid spine? Here are some Rhabdocidaris spines for comparison:

 

[GeschWhat]

4 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

Maybe an echinoid spine? Here are some Rhabdocidaris spines for comparison:

It does look very similar, especially 215. The problem is, this is from a freshwater floodplain. It is a spiral coprolite, so it could be from a shark (like modern bull sharks) or another fish that traveled upstream (like salmon as suggested previously by @Tidgy's Dad). To the best of my knowledge, no shark teeth or ocean dwelling fish teeth have been found in the area. A fellow forum member has a pet lungfish who only produces a fecal pellet once a week. So it would be plausible that a fish could travel quite a distance in a week's time. But how far could it travel, and how far would it have been to the nearest marine environment?

 

Sorry for rambling, just thinking out loud - or should I say through the keyboard. 

[abyssunder]

Than, maybe it's a plant remain, but which of the Triassic freshwater plants, I don't know. It could be also a terrestrial plant fallen in water and picked up by the fish.

 

(21a and 21b is written in cyrillic)

[GeschWhat]

I wrote to a paleobotanist and a paleontologist who has been studying the Triassic (Chinle) for 30+ years today. Hopefully, they can provide some insight. This is going to drive me crazy (or crazier) if I can't figure it out.

[abyssunder]

'Something Really Weird' - I agree, like the preservation of the inclusions in coprolites.

[GeschWhat]

I just found this photo of a cave weta leg on Wikipedia. Take a look at the joint. What do you think about the possibility of an insect leg? Would/could chitin fossilize like this?

[abyssunder]

Could be something similar to a crustacean or insect leg, also. The preservation/alteration of dietary remains exceeds my boundaries, but sometimes  the remains coprolites contain tend to be in better states of preservation than dietary remains recovered from nonfecal deposits. Usually chitin skeletons do not fossilize well, but how is it in the case of coprolites, I don't know. The depositional and postdepositional conditions might be important as well.

[KimTexan]

I know nothing about this topic, but it does bear some resemblance to water or marsh plants that grow in shallow water or along rivers and around or in lakes. Many are hollow. Alternanthéra aquática, Equisetum aka horsetail and waterlilies to name a few of the hollow type plants that grow in or by water. Some of the equisetum branch, but I’m not certain if the branches are hollow too. Since they are characterized as vascular I would assume the stems would be hollow too. I know there are equisetum in the fossil record, but I think they are from the Holocene. They can be quite fiberous and tough so they would be more likely to survive than a waterlilies. I’m not sure what cattail rhizomes look like. Cattails are hollow too, but they don’t branch, but I believe their root systems do. 

Now that I say that it could be a number of plant roots too. There are mangrove roots that branch and are hollow. So many possibilities among plants. I don’t know if any species are found in the area where this was.

[Pemphix]

Could be some burrows from fecal eating animals, too.