Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I found this in an old quarry at the foot of the Old Man of Coniston, Cumbria, England about 30 years back. It's from the Ashgill Shales, so is very uppermost Hirnantian, Upper Ordovician. 

It was a dome shape but broke during extraction,to reveal a smaller dome within the dome and so on, but is built up of layers and layers though the 'tubes' running through it also continue upwards and outwards from the base. Is it Fisherites ? It's about 3.5 cm in diameter but was a little bit bigger. 

Thanks for any help. 

Top :

20171104_224721-1.thumb.jpg.956a62b29c2b3ede53fd103ebf7c5d9e.jpg

20171104_224735-1.thumb.jpg.63ae17ba8f345c52c617272b539a8ae7.jpg

Side :

20171104_224815-1.thumb.jpg.cb396b7fee0134912047caabecc5002d.jpg

Side and base :

20171104_224844-1.thumb.jpg.49277e146b271a25c1ba77c2ec57d421.jpg

Base :

20171104_224859-1.thumb.jpg.eb28b5de753047f9785dd181785e6a16.jpg

 

 

 

 

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a chaetetid sponge, to me.

" We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. "

Thomas Mann

My Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think fisherites , I will try to find my specimen to compare. Your first picture for me shows it in its best light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going with either Chaetetes (as @abyssunder suggested) or, more likely from that area, a favositid like Palaeofavosites. Its corallites are about 1mm diameter so you could check that. I don't honestly know how to distinguish it from chaetetids...

 

(Edit: as the tubes are well under 1mm, this is wrong and bryozoan seems likely.)

Tarquin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, doushantuo said:

Any idea where exactly it was found(e.g.Longsleddale)?

All i've got written on the card is Old Man of Coniston., the peak near Coniston water. I remember it was a small quarry dug into the side of the mountain base, but it was 30 years ago and i can't remember any more. 

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnBrewer said:

@TqB may know amongst others Adam

 

Thank you, John. :)

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, abyssunder said:

It looks like a chaetetid sponge, to me.

It does, but not sure they're reported from here. 

Thank you for your reply. :)

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Malone said:

Could it possibly be some sort of stromatolite formation?

Good idea, but again I'm not sure they're known from here, but then neither is Fisherites. 

Thank you. :)

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

It was a dome shape but broke during extraction,to reveal a smaller dome within the dome and so on, but is built up of layers and layers though the 'tubes' running through it also continue upwards and outwards from the base. Is it Fisherites ? It's about 3.5 cm in diameter but was a little bit bigger. 

Could it be a diagenetic pressure shadow that causes them to look tube like in some perspective ?

It would also explain the apparent lack of pores that complicates the favositid ID.

@TqB  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Could it be a diagenetic pressure shadow that causes them to look tube like in some perspective ?

It would also explain the apparent lack of pores that complicates the favositid ID.

@TqB  

I can't tell whether or not it has pores - @Tidgy's Dad?

Tarquin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see classic pattern of fisherites

 

bercofimages.jpgrauffita0048.jpg 

 

 These images were provided by doushantuo in an earlier posting about fisherites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TqB said:

I'm going with either Chaetetes (as @abyssunder suggested) or, more likely from that area, a favositid like Palaeofavosites. Its corallites are about 1mm diameter so you could check that. I don't honestly know how to distinguish it from chaetetids...

Not known from the area, those pores are much less than 1mm in diameter, just like pinpricks. 

Thank you, Tarquin. :)

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The High Pike Haw Fm. seems to have corals,but no species designations are known  to me(as we speak,that is) 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

Could it be a diagenetic pressure shadow that causes them to look tube like in some perspective ?

It would also explain the apparent lack of pores that complicates the favositid ID.

@TqB  

There are pores. 

To me it now looks more like Prasopora. Image result for prasopora

image.jpeg.7886122d965f7dddc96f3fdada25dd22.jpegThe structure and pores look very similar and many bryozoans occur in this rock formation. 

 

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TqB said:

I can't tell whether or not it has pores - @Tidgy's Dad?

Yes, the whole of the domed surface was, and is, covered in tiny pores, which are separated, don't seem to have walls between them as in Favosites .

20171104_224721-1.thumb.jpg.5b8dfc4f3e82cc7a50c8ef054a23624a.jpgThe whole surface is covered with these not-touching pores better seen inside the black outline. 

image.jpeg

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

I do not see classic pattern of fisherites

 

bercofimages.jpgrauffita0048.jpg 

 

 These images were provided by doushantuo in an earlier posting about fisherites.

Thank you, Mike. :)

I tend to agree, it doesn't have the radiating swirls, and the pores are a lot more separated from each other. 

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryozoan looks good - Harper and Owen, Fossils of the Upper Ordovician, has a "Monotrypa" from Coniston that could fit. The only Prasopora (P. grayae) listed in it is typically only 1cm across.

Tarquin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Yes, the whole of the domed surface was, and is, covered in tiny pores, which are separated, don't seem to have walls between them as in Favosites .

The whole surface is covered with these not-touching pores better seen inside the black outline. 

 

 

I was meaning pores between the tubes, connecting them, characteristic of favositids. But the tubes are too small for corallites anyway so bryozoan is a better bet.

Tarquin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...