Gen. et sp. indet. Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Found this (likely Callovian) beauty today in Cracow, but probably it comes from Zalas, Poland. Any ideas on the ID? I'm towards algae for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DatFossilBoy Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 I am leaning more to the geologic side because I can see crystals in the rock. Very interesting piece. Lets see what the real experts say. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. et sp. indet. Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 Well, it's a breccia with many of the shells dissolved leaving empty spaces, sometimes with crystals. You can see a gastropod mould on the left of the 4th photo. The photos were made on a wetted surface. The bars are too regular and homogenous for simply being just crystals. There's also a central tube. After further inspection, I discovered at least 3 such fossils in the rock, which is otherwise full of molluscs (some shells and hundreds of empty spaces). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malone Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Looks like a rolly Polly (armadillidiidae) ,but that's just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. et sp. indet. Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 I don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Intriguing - I'm guessing we are looking at a cast of the organism, someone here will know - just not me! Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 It could be from Zalas. Maybe it's an echinoid spine fragment revealing its internal structure. This is a cross-section of the spine showing its hollow center and porous wall architecture (scale bar = 1.0 millimeter). Right: This is the outer surface of the spine. Barbs point toward the spine's tip (scale bar = 200 micro meters). Credit: Dr Naomi Tsafnat This is a MicroCT reconstruction of a portion of the spine showing details of its internal anatomy: 1 - inner wall, 2 - wedge, 3 - barb, 4 - bridge, 5 - porous zone. Credit: Dr. Naomi Tsafnat link 3 " 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 More sharing options...
Malone Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Gen. et sp. indet. said: I don't think so... It's a possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Picture 4 shows a snail steinkern, definitely fossil, not mineral. My first thought is a sponge steinkern. 51 minutes ago, Malone said: t's a possibility You are looking at superficial structure shapes, You need to also look at the overall shape and placements. There is no way (not even the slightest possibility) of this being an armadillidiidae, or any other Isopoda. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 I’m thinking echinoderm, possibly starfish arm with ampule and the ambulacral ossicles of the radial canal. These are very poor quality pictures from googling “starfish dissection” but you can get the idea of the structure. The last pic is a diagram of a sponge. I see similarities in both. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malone Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 2 hours ago, ynot said: Picture 4 shows a snail steinkern, definitely fossil, not mineral. My first thought is a sponge steinkern. You are looking at superficial structure shapes, You need to also look at the overall shape and placements. There is no way (not even the slightest possibility) of this being an armadillidiidae, or any other Isopoda. I thought maybe it was with a major portion of the appendages and head worn off but it was just an observation anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. et sp. indet. Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 Thank you all for the ideas, although I still think of algae as the primary option. 4 hours ago, Malone said: It's a possibility Sorry, but it's definitely not a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malone Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Gen. et sp. indet. said: Thank you all for the ideas, although I still think of algae as the primary option. Sorry, but it's definitely not a possibility. Thank you for pointing that out so thoughtfully. It was a possibility until it was disproved. If you say it doesn't have similarities you are wrong. That's why I made sure to specify it was just an observation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 3 hours ago, KimTexan said: I’m thinking echinoderm, possibly starfish arm with ampule and the ambulacral ossicles of the radial canal. I definitely see the echinoderm angle, but this appears to have been deposited in a higher energy situation than a star would be expected to survive. Crinoid would be where I tend to lean, but I don't have much experience with Mesozoic forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DatFossilBoy Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Gen. et sp. indet. said: Thank you all for the ideas, although I still think of algae as the primary option. Sorry, but it's definitely not a possibility. But what’s the point of you asking for ID,people give documents and do research but despite that,you still think it’s algae? I mean it’s your choice so you think whatever you want to think,but I’m not sure if I would not take in account other ideas. By the way, @Malone was just trying to help. Regards 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 The more I look, the more I'm convinced that it might be eroded echinoid spine. It will be very easy to demonstrate if it's that or not, making longitudinaland and transverse sections on collected echinoid spine material of the Zalas quarry or adjacent areas. Can we have a farther view of the whole ensemble in the position shown in the first picture? BTW, the Zalas quarry have Permian volcanic ryodacites and andesites deposits, also limestones with hydrothermal mineralization (which I think has your specimen). The fossil deposits are in the Callovian-Oxfordian strata. 2 " 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 More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, abyssunder said: The more I look, the more I'm convinced that it might be eroded echinoid spine. Echinoid spines definitely share modern beaches with gastropod shells. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 That's true. The area, especially the Zalas quarry, yields a big variety of fossils: gastropods, bivalves, crinoids, echinoids, sea-stars, sponges, corals, bryozoans, foraminifers, radiolarians, belemnites, ammonites, nautiloids, sharks and other marine reptiles. 2 " 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 More sharing options...
Gen. et sp. indet. Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 5 hours ago, DatFossilBoy said: But what’s the point of you asking for ID,people give documents and do research but despite that,you still think it’s algae? I mean it’s your choice so you think whatever you want to think,but I’m not sure if I would not take in account other ideas. By the way, @Malone was just trying to help. Regards I am sorry. I appreciate every opinion and it's not like I'm convinced it is algae - it's just one that is high on the ranking of possibilities. I don't know what it is - that's why asking. I'll try to make the requested pictures tomorrow. Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Gen. et sp. indet. said: not like I'm convinced it is algae - it's just one that is high on the ranking of possibilities. I don't know what it is It has no resemblance to any algae fossil I have seen. Algae has no structure, it is an amorphous blob or hair like threads. What makes this hard to identify is We only see the voids that were in the original shell/organism. I think Abyssunder is correct with an urchin spine steinkern. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 Pervasively micritized dasycladalean algal thallus,IMO . For once,I'm reasonably positive about this ID Nice preservation of the phloiophores!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 50 minutes ago, doushantuo said: Pervasively micritized dasycladalean algal thallus,IMO . For once,I'm reasonably positive about this ID Nice preservation of the phloiophores!! What about the size difference? Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 If you look at the size range of,e.g.,Landeria, it is possible,I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. et sp. indet. Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 2 hours ago, ynot said: It has no resemblance to any algae fossil I have seen. Algae has no structure, it is an amorphous blob or hair like threads. See a Palaeozoic example of an algae: https://www.google.pl/search?q=coelosphaeridium&client=ms-android-tmobile-pl&prmd=mivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch Dasycladaceans can be very complicated in structure and often quite big. https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/fossil-plants-2/ulvophyceae.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 I stand corrected. Live and learn, that is what makes this forum so great! 3 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now