Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Tidgy's Dad

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

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnBrewer

@TqB may know amongst others Adam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

Or the bryozoan Prasopora ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malone

Could it possibly be some sort of stromatolite formation?

Share this post


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

Is it Fisherites ?

I'd say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Rico

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TqB

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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. 

Share this post


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

@TqB may know amongst others Adam

 

Thank you, John. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood
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  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TqB
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

I do not see classic pattern of fisherites

 

bercofimages.jpgrauffita0048.jpg 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

yosmpesllifaern4akristleanthc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

Plate 7 from Boardman(1971):

cwillrist.jpg

cwillrist.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TqB

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TqB
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.

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.

×