Enigmatic Ammonite Eggs (?)

[Carl]

13 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

O.puerilis as made by juvenile callianassids:

 

 

From Frey's classic 1978 review

Fantastic! Where's that color photo from?

[doushantuo]

[abyssunder]

exerpt from K.A. Estes-Smargiassi, A.A. Klompmaker. 2015. An enigmatic trace fossil from the Upper Triassic (Rhaetian) shales of Western Europe. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences - Geologie En Mijnbouw, 94(3): 271-277

 

" Tomaculum Groom, 1902 was not only designated to typify single fecal pellets of cylindrical outline. An essential part of the protologue is the special mode of accumulation, which took place on the sediment surface, in charactristic patches, strings and/or bands. Thus, Tomaculum is senior synonym of Syncoprulus Richter & Richter, 1939a, who noticed this synonymy immediately (1939b). "Coprulus n.g." had been established by Richter & Richter (1939a) as informal name only, for single coprogenic pellets of cylindicral shape. This is the reason why Coprulus should not be considered as junior synonym of Tomaculum. Moreover, Coprulus is out of any nomenclatorical state because of missing type species. In contrast to the current use Tomaculum should not serve for "composite trace fossils" with cylindrical or granular Coprulus-like constituents, e.g. pellet-filled burrows similar to Alcyonidiopsis Massalongo, 1856. Burrows of the Alcyonidiopsis type have been originated infaunally whereas Tomaculum pellets and strings are the excrementa of an epibenthic animal comparable to the excremental behaviour of gastropods.  " - Eiserhardt et al., 2001

 

[GeschWhat]

4 hours ago, Carl said:

I call these masses "chamber pots"

Brilliant! 

[Plax]

here's a pic of ophiomorpha.

[abyssunder]

Lori, I can see a close resemblance of your specimen with Tubotomaculum mediterranensis. What do you think?

 

excerpts from J. C. Garcia-Ramos et al. 2014. The ichnogenus Tubotomaculum: An enigmatic pellet-filled structure from Upper Cretaceous to Miocene deep-marine deposits of southern Spain. Journal of Paleontology, 88(6): 1189–1198

[Carl]

On 3/15/2018 at 11:30 AM, doushantuo said:

Thanks!

[Tidgy's Dad]

What a very interesting thread! 

[Pilobolus]

On 3/15/2018 at 9:15 AM, Carl said:

I would not call that Ophiomorpha. I was just call that an invertebrate coprolite mass. Ophiomoprha pellets are circular and don't overlap and the burrows tend to be quite circular in cross-section. There are various ichnotaxa applied to these things like Alcyonidiopsis and Tubotomaculum. I suspect these are formed when drifts of these microcoprolites (which are all hydrodynamically identical and thus prone to accumulating) wind up filling some sort of chamber (I call these masses "chamber pots"). I have seen them as ammonite, bivalve, and snail steinkerns as well as probable burrow fills.

Hahaha! Hilarious!

[DPS Ammonite]

Fecal pellets seem reasonable. These are not Ophiomorpha based on reliable definitions from KU and Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.

 

http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/ophiomorpha.html:  DESCRIPTION: Vertical and horizontal cylindrical burrows. Tunnels branch and locally swell close to or at points of branching. Smooth interior walls. Outer surface of burrow lined with ovoid pellets.
BEHAVIOR(S): Trace is the dwelling burrows of decapod crustaceans, including numerous species of Thalassinidean shrimp. Tube margins are lined with fecal pellets. 

 

The definition of Ophiomorpha  in the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleonotology is similiar to above definition (KU sponsers the Treatise.) My takeaway: Ophiomorpha are burrows that are lined with ovoid pellets. There is no mention in the definition that the pellets have to be either mud balls or fecal pellets. The ovoid pellets do not fill the whole burrow. The pellets on the ammonite appear to be solid mass and are not a burrow lining. 

 

@GeschWhat I have the same Ophiomorpha  looking rock from the Eagle Ford Group and also have one from the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale from Jacksboro Texas. If the pellets do not extend to the center of the rock (and the burrow is hollow) then the rock might be Ophiomorpha. Take a look at yours and lets us know if the pellets extend to the center of rock or not.

 

 

 

   

[GeschWhat]

On 3/15/2018 at 5:00 PM, abyssunder said:

Lori, I can see a close resemblance of your specimen with Tubotomaculum mediterranensis. What do you think?

I do, it's just larger. As always, thanks for the paper!

[GeschWhat]

29 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

@GeschWhat I have the same Ophiomorpha  looking rock from the Eagle Ford Group and also have one from the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale from Jacksboro Texas. If the pellets do not extend to the center of the rock (and the burrow is hollow) then the rock might be Ophiomorpha. Take a look at yours and lets us know if the pellets extend to the center of rock or not.

Will do. I may have to grind it down and polish the end in order to see anything. 

[GeschWhat]

56 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

@GeschWhat I have the same Ophiomorpha  looking rock from the Eagle Ford Group and also have one from the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale from Jacksboro Texas. If the pellets do not extend to the center of the rock (and the burrow is hollow) then the rock might be Ophiomorpha. Take a look at yours and lets us know if the pellets extend to the center of rock or not.

It appears pretty homogeneous when I polish it. When I scrape it, it appears to have ovoid shaped depressions. My guess is I have a chamber pot. 

[Pilobolus]

Hey all:

 

Just wanted to thank everyone for so many insights and introduction to a whole bunch of great primary lit.

 

Much appreciated,

 

-Bryan

 

 

[abyssunder]

On 3/14/2018 at 4:58 AM, Pilobolus said:

Let me know if better images are needed, and thanks for the interest.

It's an interesting thread indeed.

Can you post a picture which shows the pellets from a lateral view (parallel to the surface of the ammonite) ?

[Pilobolus]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:05 PM, abyssunder said:

It's an interesting thread indeed.

Can you post a picture which shows the pellets from a lateral view (parallel to the surface of the ammonite) ?

Just seeing your message. will try on the photography...

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Pilobolus]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:05 PM, abyssunder said:

It's an interesting thread indeed.

Can you post a picture which shows the pellets from a lateral view (parallel to the surface of the ammonite) ?

 

Update: It's making a trip to the museum via Mike, so no photographs for a bit...maybe longer...

 

 

[KCMOfossil]

[ynot]

1 hour ago, Pilobolus said:

It's making a trip to the museum via Mike,

Please keep Us updated on this.

Thanks.

[piranha]

On 3/13/2018 at 4:00 PM, piranha said:

The name "Tomaculopsis Breton 2011" is not valid.  Unfortunately, it is preoccupied by a marine alga: Tomaculopsis Cribb 1960.

 

 

Correction update: 

 

Algae are covered by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), formerly the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN).  Although the ICZN and ICN are separate governing bodies, hopefully the rules of priority and common sense will eventually have to catch up to ever-expanding taxonomic databases accessible via Google search.  I was tripped up on this one, and just realized the mistake when I discovered Ceratocephala Moench 1794 (plant) and Ceratocephala Warder 1838 (trilobite).  If I was establishing a new genus, I would certainly not want it to be preoccupied by any organisim, now or in the future.  Very confusing and unnecessary!  

[abyssunder]

" The problems of trace fossil classification and nomenclature have been discussed at length by Hantzschel (1962) in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part W.
The most acceptable system is a compromise one proposed by Seilacher (1953) in which higher categories are based on ethological interpretations and lower categories (ichnospecies) on taxonomic interpretations. Hantzschel on several occasions emphasises that “ genera ” and “ species ” when applied to trace fossils do not have the same standing or meaning as they do in normal taxonomic usage; he notes (Hantzschel, 1962; W178) that they “. . . are only supposed to indicate a certain formal assemblage”. He further comments (p. W 178) that “the naming of fossils, their delimitation and thus their synonymy is nowhere in paleontology so dependent on personal opinion as in this group of fossils”. Despite the difficulty of applying zoological principles and general paleontological procedures to the classification of trace fossils it has been customary to use binary nomenclature when naming them.
However, such names (ichnogenera and ichnospecies) are not universally accepted and are not recognised under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. "

 

excerpt from M. R. Gregory. 1969. Trace Fossils from the Turbidite Facies of the Waitemata Group, Whangaparaoa Peninsula, Auckland. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand : Earth Sciences7(1): 1-20

[piranha]

10 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

...However, such names (ichnogenera and ichnospecies) are not universally accepted and are not recognised under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. "

 

excerpt from M. R. Gregory. 1969. Trace Fossils from the Turbidite Facies of the Waitemata Group, Whangaparaoa Peninsula, Auckland. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand : Earth Sciences7(1): 1-20

 

 

Your citation from 1969 is demonstrably incorrect.  Ichnofossils are governed by the ICZN:  LINK

 

 

[abyssunder]

" Open nomenclature

 

(...) In order to clearly distinguish ichnotaxa from biological names, we propose to follow the usage of Bromley & D’Alessandro (1987) who introduced ‘isp.’ and ‘igen.’ for open nomenclature as well as for the original description of new trace fossils.

 

Ichnosystematics

 

Systematic levels

 

For the goals of ichnotaxonomy, it is important to keep in mind that more systematic ranks are available than just ichnospecies and ichnogenus. Subgenera and subspecies
are permitted in the systematics of trace fossils as well, although they are rarely used (Rindsberg 1990). No new systematic scheme for trace fossils is presented here, because the question of naming an individual (trace) fossil or any other organism is independent of its position within the system. We welcome in principle the tentative attempts of previous authors to establish ichnoorders and higher categories (Seilacher 1953; Vyalov 1966, 1972). These ranks have been established beyond the system of namebearing types, i.e. rules of priority and homonymy do not apply. Ichnotaxa may be incorporated into a higherrank classification if this is independent of biological systematics. Because these taxa are established outside the realms of the ICZN, each subsequent author is free to adopt or dismiss them. Our main concern here is the ichnofamily rank, because it is governed by the ICZN.  (...)"

 

excerpt from M. Bertling et al. 2006. Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach. Lethaia 39: 265-286

[piranha]

The bottom line is the current system is antiquated.  I have several friends that have named new trilobite genera.  There is zero chance they would ever name a new trilobite genus that shared a name with a plant or bacteria, simply because the outdated rules allow it.  Just because you can, does not mean you should.  Common sense dictates it is more preferable to devise a different and unique name that can stand the test of time, rather than having a homonym subjected to potential confusion in the future.  

 

 

Btw, Tomaculum has recently been suppressed as junior synonym of Alcyonidiopsis.  Onward we march, progress not perfection!   

 

"For example, the ichnogenus Alcyonidiopsis (senior synonym of Tomaculum–Uchman 1999; Buatois et al. 2017) consists of strings or elongated aggregates of millimeter-sized, ellipsoidal to cylindrical objects regarded as fecal pellets (Eiserhardt et al. 2001; Bruthansova´ and Kraft 2003; Buatois et al. 2017)."

 

Kimmig, J., & Pratt, B.R. (2018)

Coprolites in the Ravens Throat River Lagerstätte of northwestern Canada: Implications for the Middle Cambrian food web.

Palaios, 33(4):125-140

 

"The taxonomic status of the pellet-filled ichnogenus Tomaculum Groom, 1902 is uncertain.  Most authors (Chamberlain, 1977; Uchman, 1995, 1999) regarded Alcyonidiopsis as its senior synonym, although Eiserhardt et al. (2001) recently noted that Tomaculum may represent a surface fecal string, whereas Alcyonidiopsis is an infaunal burrow, suggesting retention of both ichnogenera.  A surface fecal string origin for Tomaculum is judged unlikely given the very low preservation potential of surface structures.  In this paper we considered Tomaculum as a junior synonym of Alcyonidiopsis." 

 

Buatois, L. A., Wisshak, M., Wilson, M.A., & Mángano, M.G. (2017)

Categories of architectural designs in trace fossils: A measure of ichnodisparity. 

Earth-Science Reviews, 164:102-181

[abyssunder]

Buatois et al., 2017 is nice publication, putting all together what is related to ichnology. I have it and I read it. Really nice! Thank to the authors for they great work.

 

" Alcyonidiopsis Massalongo, 1856 - Alcyonidiopsis occurs as endichnial, straight to slightly winding horizontal cylinder, 5-8 mm in diameter, filled with small ovoid pellets, 0.4-0.6 mm in diameter (Pl. 2, fig. 2). Lining is doubtful and many very small brown ovoid pellets have been found close to the tunnel margin. Pellets are dark and irregularly disposed along the tunnel, giving an easily recognizable outline of a horizontal flat trace fossil (Monaco & Checconi, 2008). But, unlike Ophiomorpha where pellets are exclusively in burrow lining, in Alcyonidiopsis ovoid pellets fill the burrow (Uchman, 1995a). For the synonymy of the ichnogenus Alcyonidiopsis see Chamberlain (1977). This trace fossil is considered as a polychaete feeding burrow and is known from the Ordovician to the Miocene. In the M. Solare section, Alcyonidiopsis, mainly A. longobardiae Massalongo, usually occurs randomly in E2 (very rare) and E3 intervals of bioclastic turbidites, usually in the deepest levels, 3-6 cm below the level with Avetoichnus and 8-10 cm below the supposed turbidite surface. "

 

P. Monaco et al. 2012. The Paleogene trace fossil Avetoichnus luisae from Italy, Poland and Spain. Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 51(1): 23-38

I can't see any burrow / tunnel (in-filled or out-filled with pellets) in the pictures of the OP, but I can see nicely arranged pellet accumulations on the surface of the ammonite, which resemble very well Tomaculum igen. or Tomaculopsis igen. described in the references I've used.

 

Now we have to go back to Eiserhardt et al., 2001 ; Breton, 2011 to see what is the difference between Tomaculum and Tomaculopsis.