Jump to content
minnbuckeye

Unknown next to a Conularia

Recommended Posts

minnbuckeye

Three posts in a day is a new record for me!! This hash plate was collected in the same formation as where my trilobites in another post came from. I am interested in IDing the smaller structure next to the conularia. My guess is the stalk that the conularia anchors with???? Thanks for any thoughts.

 

 

DSC_0219.thumb.JPG.385b280d1ea638bdefc5e8306b1ea647.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha

Tentaculites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

It's lovely! (the conularid and the tentaculid) What a wonderful specimen of weird creatures long gone.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herb

Nice specimens, I agree with the ID's also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foozil

Very nice specimens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

Thanks for the ID. Don't have a clue what a tenaculid is but it will give me something to do tonight!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
3 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

It's lovely! (the conularid and the tentaculid) What a wonderful specimen of weird creatures long gone.. :)

 

45 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

Thanks for the ID. Don't have a clue what a tenaculid is but it will give me something to do tonight!!

 

 

You will have absolutely no luck searching for 'tentaculid' or 'tenaculid'.  They are Tentaculites: Tentaculitidae (tentaculitids)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
3 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

 

You will have absolutely no luck searching for 'tentaculid' or 'tenaculid'.  They are Tentaculites: Tentaculitidae (tentaculitids)

 

 

Thank you, I am sure your correction is the currently valid one, but one does have luck searching under 'tentaculid'. 

It is what i used to know them as when i was a collector many moons ago, rightly or wrongly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
9 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

...but one does have luck searching under 'tentaculid'...

 

 

Not really, only 21 hits on Google Scholar for 'tentaculid' vs 1,320 hits for the correct term: tentaculitids

 

0 hits on Google Scholar for 'tenaculid'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gturner333

What is the size of the conularia? The largest I have ever found is about 1 1/2 inches. This looks like it could be very large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
12 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

Not really, only 21 hits on Google Scholar for 'tentaculid' vs 1,320 hits for the correct term: tentaculitids

 

0 hits on Google Scholar for 'tenaculid'.

 

As i say, i'm sure your definition is the correct and accepted one, but it is not true to say "absolutely no luck" in searching this. Again, as I say, rightly or wrongly  if you just enter "tentaculids" into ordinary Google you get a lot of results including books, articles, documents and so on, recent and even this year. Wikipedia itself (whatever that's worth) uses it. A search would provide the required result of what they are. 

However, I am happy to be corrected and will use the much more common term from now on. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

As i say, i'm sure your definition is the correct and accepted one, but it is not true to say "absolutely no luck" in searching this. Again, as I say, rightly or wrongly  if you just enter "tentaculids" into ordinary Google you get a lot of results including books, articles, documents and so on, recent and even this year. Wikipedia itself (whatever that's worth) uses it. A search would provide the required result of what they are. 

However, I am happy to be corrected and will use the much more common term from now on. :)

 

 

Yes, but there were 0 hits for the other incorrect term introduced in this thread: 'tenaculid'

 

A standard Google search is also not close:  'tentaculids' 268 hits vs tentaculitids 12,600

I recommend Google Scholar as the place to look if you want to do any serious research.

emo73.gif :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
1 minute ago, piranha said:

 

 

Yes, but there were 0 hits for the other incorrect term introduced in this thread: 'tenaculid'.  

 

A standard Google search is also not close:  'tentaculids' 268 hits vs tentaculids 12,600

I recommend Google Scholar as the place to look if you want to do any serious research.

emo73.gif :P

 

Yes, you are correct, I am not arguing with this point. 

But it's easily done, isn't it? You just posted 'tentaculids' 268 vs tentaculids 12,600. 

I'm not talking about volume or what is scientifically correct, just what i knew them as rightly or wrongly as i have stated before. 

Put 'tentaculid' in the search feature here and see the well known names that have used it, some this year. 

And i'm sure there are more for tentaculitid, but the point is people do use the term, get results and people seem to know what they're talking about. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

Gentlemen, I think the point has been adequately made.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

554px-Augen_gneiss_est.jpg

 

The late great Noor M.Farsan new his tentaculitids,this is the only worthy successor to Wolf Blind's classic early 70's study.

In the sense that it proceeds from through ultrastructural study

 

 

56ughb.jpg

bercofirmages.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye
11 hours ago, gturner333 said:

What is the size of the conularia? The largest I have ever found is about 1 1/2 inches. This looks like it could be very large.

 

The conularia measures 2.25 inches. Not sure if it is big or not.

@gturner333 

 

 My research shows these little guys look like mini cephalopods. So in the picture provided, is this one tentaculite  or two laying side by side? None of the pictures I found shows the crease down the middle which makes me hedge towards two side by side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TqB
16 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

 

The conularia measures 2.25 inches. Not sure if it is big or not.

@gturner333 

 

 My research shows these little guys look like mini cephalopods. So in the picture provided, is this one tentaculite  or two laying side by side? None of the pictures I found shows the crease down the middle which makes me hedge towards two side by side.

 

I was wondering about that - it looks as if they might join up at the right hand end or is that just the photo?

If it's actually a sulcus in a single specimen, I don't know what it is.

 

There's some longitudinal ornament that looks rather like conulariid rods though some tentaculitids have longitudinal ridges too. And the colour's the same as the conulariid which is perhaps unexpected as conulariids were phosphatic, tentaculitids calcitic. :wacko:

 

5a05a20ce3b59_ScreenShot2017-11-10at12_55_32.png.37d31aa857f5959ef00d1d373ef1ac58.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
westcoast
2 minutes ago, TqB said:

 

I was wondering about that - it looks as if they might join up at the right hand end or is that just the photo?

If it's actually a sulcus in a single specimen, I don't know what it is.

 

There's some longitudinal ornament that looks rather like conulariid rods though some tentaculitids have longitudinal ridges too. And the colour's the same as the conulariid which is perhaps unexpected as conulariids were phosphatic, tentaculitids calcitic. :wacko:

 

5a05a20ce3b59_ScreenShot2017-11-10at12_55_32.png.37d31aa857f5959ef00d1d373ef1ac58.png

 

 

Yes it does look like a bifurcation, which makes it more interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gturner333

At 2.25 inches, well there are larger, but that is definitely a keeper. Out of over 50 that i have gotten over the years, 1 1/2 inches was my best. Definitely a good find. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

Thanks for following up on that Scott.  That answers some questions I had.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
westcoast
1 hour ago, piranha said:

 

 

The UO invert specialist agrees it is Tentaculites.

 

Q: Found in Maquoketa Fm associated with a conulariid.  It looks like Tentaculites, or is it something else?

A: Yes, it looks like Tentaculites scalariformis.

 

Q: Why are some tentaculitids bifurcated?  I have seen this in other examples but have never found an explanation.

A: Some are crushed and broken down the midline by burial compaction, so presumably had soft tissue inside that excluded sediment fill.  That seems likely in this case.

I have found crushed cinoind stems that have been split lengthwise like that by compression but that end to the right where it appears branched doesn't look crushed which is why it looks odd. Just an artefact of compaction however is the most logical conclusion.

Share this post


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.

×