PROBLEMATICA ?

[Pachy]

5 hours ago, TqB said:

 

That's interesting, I'm still not convinced that all chaetetids are sponges in any case - I believe spicules have only been detected in very few of them. 

By the way, the genus Monotrypa is given in inverted commas in the UK Upper Ordovician guide I referenced so cf. Monotrypa is probably safer.  

The presence of spicules is a characteristic by which Chaetetids are currently considered sponges, but it is not the only one.

Examples of conserved spicules.
 

http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/351.pdf

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016699595802223

 

https://www.palass.org/publications/palaeontology-journal/archive/23/4/article_pp803-820

 

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49721675#page/345/mode/1up

 

The presence of septal projections is another microstructural feature that is used to reassign specimens previously belonging to algae within the Chaetetids.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0031-0239.2004.00351.x

 

If someone wants to delve into the field of Chaetetids:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257559077_Hypercalcified_Extant_and_Fossil_Chaetetid-Type_and_Post-Devonian_Stromatoporoid-Type_Demospongiae_Systematic_Descriptions?enrichId=rgreq-acb474f9b0f0a9d363ce0b10e8a67cf3-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NzU1OTA3NztBUzozNjUyOTQ3MjkwODkwMjRAMTQ2NDEwNDQ1ODI2Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

 

https://www.google.es/search?q=chaetetids&rlz=1C1CAFA_esES731ES731&oq=chaetetids&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j0l4.8946j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#

 

http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rmcg/v29n3/v29n3a10.pdf

 

http://www.palmuc.de/bspg/images/pdf/2_senowbari.pdf

 

https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/RIPS/article/view/6047/6468

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

57 minutes ago, Pachy said:

The presence of spicules is a characteristic by which Chaetetids are currently considered sponges, but it is not the only one.

Examples of conserved spicules.
 

http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/351.pdf

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016699595802223

 

https://www.palass.org/publications/palaeontology-journal/archive/23/4/article_pp803-820

 

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49721675#page/345/mode/1up

 

The presence of septal projections is another microstructural feature that is used to reassign specimens previously belonging to algae within the Chaetetids.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0031-0239.2004.00351.x

 

If someone wants to delve into the field of Chaetetids:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257559077_Hypercalcified_Extant_and_Fossil_Chaetetid-Type_and_Post-Devonian_Stromatoporoid-Type_Demospongiae_Systematic_Descriptions?enrichId=rgreq-acb474f9b0f0a9d363ce0b10e8a67cf3-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NzU1OTA3NztBUzozNjUyOTQ3MjkwODkwMjRAMTQ2NDEwNDQ1ODI2Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

 

https://www.google.es/search?q=chaetetids&rlz=1C1CAFA_esES731ES731&oq=chaetetids&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j0l4.8946j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#

 

http://scielo.unam.mx/pdf/rmcg/v29n3/v29n3a10.pdf

 

http://www.palmuc.de/bspg/images/pdf/2_senowbari.pdf

 

https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/RIPS/article/view/6047/6468

 

Goodness! 

That little lot will keep me busy for a while. 

Very informative, thanks for posting these. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Right, then, thanks to all who participated in this wonderful, interesting and informative thread. 

My first guess of Fisherites, or a receptaculitidid seems to be wide of the mark due to the lack of the expected swirling patterning of this group, I am now convinced it isn't one and they are not reported from this locality or stratum as far as i can discover. 

Thanks to John @JohnBrewer for bringing in Tarquin. 

Ta @abyssunder for the chaetitid suggestion, it's a possibility, but doesn't seem quite right in regard to the 'tube' width and lack of them reported at this locality or in the Ashgill shales or top Hinantian of the area as a whole. Maybe, but I don't think so. 

Then, I suggested the bryozoan Prasopora, perhaps a closer call, but it was, i think correctly, quickly pointed out by Tarquin that Prasopora, and particularly the species grayae which was the most likely in this location, didn't get nearly as big as my specimen so we can discount it, I suppose. (for now, at least) .

@Malone, thank you for the stromatoporoid idea, but i don't think it quite fits in the area or formation, though I'm not ruling it out completely. 

And thanks @Rockwoodand @Bobby Rico for supporting my Fisherites idea which I now believe to be wrong, partly thanks to @minnbuckeye for his post and thanks also Mike for alerting @doushantuo who i also really wish to thank for most useful and informative suggestions and input. 

Then, @TqB supported the Chaetitid idea and put forward a favositid as an alternative before we discounted them due to the tiny size of the 'tubes', before suggesting the bryozoans, including Monotrypa. 

Thanks to @erose for the Tetradium idea, i don't think it is, but I learned about another interesting creature. 

And also thanks @Pachy for a couple of good links, one of which supported the Monotrypa case quite nicely. I have not read all those last links yet, but I will. 

And thanks to @Auspex for saying nice things about my thread and being back here on the forum. 

Thanks a lot to all, a very useful thread and of great value to me for now and in the future, i'm sure. 

 

[Bobby Rico]

This turned out to be a very interesting thread .

[Tidgy's Dad]

And the winner is.................................

Cf. Monotrypa.

Based on the overall morphology, size, age, reports of finding it at Coniston and because for me it's currently the best match. 

Though that could change....................

Thanks to all, i've had fun and learned loads! 

[Auspex]

@Tidgy's Dad, this clear summation and recap of the deductive process is, especially for newcomers to the science, one of the most broadly educational and informative posts in a Forum full of great posts. If I could award it 10 clicks, I would.

Thank You!

[Tidgy's Dad]

Just now, Auspex said:

@Tidgy's Dad, this clear summation and recap of the deductive process is, especially for newcomers to the science, one of the most broadly educational and informative posts in a Forum full of great posts. If I could award it 10 clicks, I would.

Thank You!

Shucks. 

[Auspex]

Seriously, leaf through the Forum. Plenty of topics with great back-and-forth, with erudition and solid reasoning on full display, but it is vanishingly hard to find any of these summed-up with a clear synopsis. Usually, they just sort of...end. This one is a model of open internet education.

[doushantuo]