Cepholopod? Fossil ID

[KimTexan]

I traveled up to OK to do some hunting last week. I stopped near a town called Gene Autry, OK near the Washita River. I found this at the site I was hunting. Sorry the top isn’t in focus. I was trying to get the shape of the sections on it.

 

It looks like a cross between an orthoceras and a baculite, but I am pretty sure the site was Pennsylvanian despite the geological map saying it is Holocene. I also found what I believe was part of a crinoid stem, which turned to dust when I tried to pick it up. I got a pic first though. I’m learning my lesson. 

I cant see any septa on this, so I do t know what it is.

I’m sure this is an easy one, I’ve just never seen one.

Any Help would be appreciated.

[Peat Burns]

Sciponoceras?

[KimTexan]

On 4/24/2018 at 11:57 PM, Peat Burns said:

Sciponoceras?

 

I have no idea. The only Cretaceous is Antlers Sandstone and a bit away from there and doesn’t look like the description of the formation. 

I was to the NW of the loop of river on in the light yellow area. This is the best I can do of the map.

 

 

The yellows are all quaternary. The bright blue is Permian. Bright green is Cretaceous Albian, Antlers Sandstone. The other colors are all Carboniferous. 

Not sure what to make of it.

[KimTexan]

I thought this ID would be an easy one. Maybe @BobWill @Uncle Siphuncle @PFOOLEY Or @DPS Ammonite would be able to confirm Sciponoceras or know what it is if not that.

I think it looks somewhat like the Sciponoceras from pics I have seen, but I haven’t seen any examples online that look like picture #1.

Picture 3 makes it look like it has a spiral pattern, but it isn’t spiral. The segments are slanted at an angle with the tongue shape on the one side as seen in pic #1. I guess you could say that the segments are at an angle almost like a sash worn from shoulder to hip. Like a scouts badge sach. 

[Peat Burns]

These are Sciponoceras from my collection, Eagle Ford Group, Denton Co., TX.  For comparison purposes. The ridges on yours don't seem quite as pronounced.

 

[Peat Burns]

 

This is the same specimen from the center of the first photo turned to the side showing the dip in the ridges 

[FossilDAWG]

You may also consider that this may be the siphuncle of an orthocerid nautiloid.  In that case the angled structures could be where the septa join the siphuncle, leaving marks that resemble suture lines but without camerae (chambers).  Such fossils are not uncommon in some Paleozoic formations, but I don't know if that would apply to the area where you were collecting.

 

Don

[Uncle Siphuncle]

2 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I thought this ID would be an easy one. Maybe @BobWill @Uncle Siphuncle @PFOOLEY Or @DPS Ammonite would be able to confirm Sciponoceras or know what it is if not that.

I think it looks somewhat like the Sciponoceras from pics I have seen, but I haven’t seen any examples online that look like picture #1.

Picture 3 makes it look like it has a spiral pattern, but it isn’t spiral. The segments are slanted at an angle with the tongue shape on the one side as seen in pic #1. I guess you could say that the segments are at an angle almost like a sash worn from shoulder to hip. Like a scouts badge sach. 

I guess I don’t get my geology badge for this one.  I fold.

[BobWill]

The geological maps show what is at the surface so whatever layer is exposed by erosion (recent or otherwise) is likely much older. First you might consider what other fossils you can identify from the site. If this could be a siphuncle as Don suggests then it would be older than Cretaceous, otherwise some member of the Baculitidae family is most likely as Peat Burns said. Without a suture showing you probably need the formation to even narrow it down more than that..

[KimTexan]

49 minutes ago, Peat Burns said:

These are Sciponoceras from my collection, Eagle Ford Group, Denton Co., TX.  For comparison purposes. The ridges on yours don't seem quite as pronounced.

 

Hum, that makes me question some of my baculite specimens a little. How do you distinguish between Baculites and Sciponoceras. The ridges on my baculites look like ornamentation though as do these. Whereas the specimen I found looks more like segmentation. Of course it is most likely a different species since it it is from another formation.

[abyssunder]

I'm wondering if it can't be a trace fossil, a meniscate backfill like Beaconites copronus or similar.

[BobWill]

Sciponoceras can show constrictions as well as ornamental ribs. I don't know if the constrictions align with the septa like on some orthoconic cephalopods but that seems like a possibility. Did you find any other fossils near these? It would be great to get these placed in an era

 

[KimTexan]

7 hours ago, Uncle Siphuncle said:

I guess I don’t get my geology badge for this one.  I fold.

Wow! I’m stunned. I never thought I’d see the day Dan. I thought you were unstumpable in regards to local cepholopods. This is just over an hour North of the Texas border. Even still I’ve been awed by your weath of knowledge many times and I have no doubt there are numerous times to come.

 

That being the case maybe it’s not Cretaceous. I have no idea of the breadth of your knowledge of cepholopods, but I consider you to be the most knowledgeable person I know of on Texas Cretaceous cepholopods, bar none.

 

I assume it’s a cepholopod. I can’t imagine it being anything else.

 

7 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

You may also consider that this may be the siphuncle of an orthocerid nautiloid.  In that case the angled structures could be where the septa join the siphuncle, leaving marks that resemble suture lines but without camerae (chambers).  Such fossils are not uncommon in some Paleozoic formations.

Don

Ok that is an interesting idea which I would have never come up with. I have no idea what an orthocerid siphuncle looks like without the body of the shell. I’d think it would be a pretty good sized orthoceras considering the diameter of the piece.

 

7 hours ago, BobWill said:

The geological maps show what is at the surface so whatever layer is exposed by erosion (recent or otherwise) is likely much older. 

I was in the flood plane of the Washita River within a few hundred yards of it. I was walking to the river to check it out. The area was the typical flat sandy flood plane with tan sand underlying everything. I was walking through a meadow when I came across a stand of old trees with a steep mound of stone in the center. It was surrounded by a moat of poison ivy and greenbriars. 

Everything I found was imbedded in the limestone type brownish gray rock with some chert and a bit of calcite. The only fossil I saw at the time was what I believed was a crinoid that turned to dust when I touched it. I’m wondering if it could have been some larval case instead. I’ve never seen a crinoid stem like that, but it was in between rocks that I pulled apart.

Here are a few pics that I took while there.

I have no idea what anything is.

Some oval shape in a rock about 4 x 2 inches.

 

Some calcite covered small boulder.

 

This is another one of those oval shapes that was about 4 x 2 inches. This one was in a small boulder and looked to be of chert type stone on limestone The boulder had maybe 5 -6 of these on it. All were about the same size. My rock hammer pick tip is in the pic. There are bumps around part of the edge of it and all were striated/banded chert. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

 

This is another version of the same curious oval shape. This was a bit bigger though and only in limestone, but still striated across with bumps around the edges. This rock looked like it might have 3-4 on it. The big one in the center. One on the bottom left, the 2 on the top right that were broken.

No clue what they are.

 

If you saw my comments in someone else’s post I said I was headed up to OK to try my hand at finding trilobites. This was an exploratory adventure for me.

I’ve never been hunting for them and was clueless as to what I was doing or where I was going with regards to the trilobites. My primary agenda for the trip though was to find Carboniferous plants, which I was successful in finding elsewhere.

 

This also has the oval form present on the right. Then there is that on the left. It looks oval too, but had more detail still present on the edges. It looks very strange. It almost looks like 5-6 creepy legs on the side/edge, but I doubt they were legs. Just very eroded, curious shapes in rocks. Oval seemed to be the shape theme there though.

[KimTexan]

These are 2 pieces I carried out. Now I’m ready to throw them out. I bought them home and washed them a bit. When I picked them up I didn’t realize they look like the same thing. They look like 2 oval lumps (smaller than the other oval shapes) at the same angle to one another, same size and funky MO. The top one is more eroded. There are fragments of material that resemble sea shell material. They’re both about 9 inches long. On the top one I took the center piece out, where it is brown so you can see how similar they are. The piece looks a bit like a sea shell shape.

 

This is the edge of the top one. As you can see it has the layered features of a sea shell of some kind. I don’t get the v shaped configuration though. 

 

Not sure that it helps with identification of the formation. Sometimes people can ID the formation just looking at the rock and knowing the area.

Whatever the case I don’t think the rocks fit the Antlers sandstone formation, but maybe I’m wrong.

[KimTexan]

Here is a piece with tiny shell fragments.

Oh! I just remembered that I did find one other piece with a tiny fossil fragment on it that was quite distinctive. I’ll have to find it tomorrow.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

11 hours ago, KimTexan said:

Wow! I’m stunned. I never thought I’d see the day Dan. I thought you were unstumpable in regards to local cepholopods. This is just over an hour North of the Texas border. Even still I’ve been awed by your weath of knowledge many times and I have no doubt there are numerous times to come.

 

That being the case maybe it’s not Cretaceous. I have no idea of the breadth of your knowledge of cepholopods, but I consider you to be the most knowledgeable person I know of on Texas Cretaceous cepholopods, bar none.

 

I assume it’s a cepholopod. I can’t imagine it being anything else.

 

Ok that is an interesting idea which I would have never come up with. I have no idea what an orthocerid siphuncle looks like without the body of the shell. I’d think it would be a pretty good sized orthoceras considering the diameter of the piece.

 

I was in the flood plane of the Washita River within a few hundred yards of it. I was walking to the river to check it out. The area was the typical flat sandy flood plane with tan sand underlying everything. I was walking through a meadow when I came across a stand of old trees with a steep mound of stone in the center. It was surrounded by a moat of poison ivy and greenbriars. 

Everything I found was imbedded in the limestone type brownish gray rock with some chert and a bit of calcite. The only fossil I saw at the time was what I believed was a crinoid that turned to dust when I touched it. I’m wondering if it could have been some larval case instead. I’ve never seen a crinoid stem like that, but it was in between rocks that I pulled apart.

Here are a few pics that I took while there.

I have no idea what anything is.

Some oval shape in a rock about 4 x 2 inches.

 

Some calcite covered small boulder.

 

This is another one of those oval shapes that was about 4 x 2 inches. This one was in a small boulder and looked to be of chert type stone on limestone The boulder had maybe 5 -6 of these on it. All were about the same size. My rock hammer pick tip is in the pic. There are bumps around part of the edge of it and all were striated/banded chert. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

 

This is another version of the same curious oval shape. This was a bit bigger though and only in limestone, but still striated across with bumps around the edges. This rock looked like it might have 3-4 on it. The big one in the center. One on the bottom left, the 2 on the top right that were broken.

No clue what they are.

 

If you saw my comments in someone else’s post I said I was headed up to OK to try my hand at finding trilobites. This was an exploratory adventure for me.

I’ve never been hunting for them and was clueless as to what I was doing or where I was going with regards to the trilobites. My primary agenda for the trip though was to find Carboniferous plants, which I was successful in finding elsewhere.

 

This also has the oval form present on the right. Then there is that on the left. It looks oval too, but had more detail still present on the edges. It looks very strange. It almost looks like 5-6 creepy legs on the side/edge, but I doubt they were legs. Just very eroded, curious shapes in rocks. Oval seemed to be the shape theme there though.

Gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.  I have been famously if not hilariously wrong on my ID’s more than I care to remember.  It’s all a cringeworthy bad dream at this point, but it usually happens when I attempt to extrapolate in cavalier fashion between my experience and a photo where I don’t have enough detail or context to open my mouth intelligently, or preservation is rough or incomplete.  So, in this case, I’d rather not muddy the waters with unsupportable conjecture.

[abyssunder]

The strange is that the specimen in question has an almost round shape in the transverse view, maybe not enough flattened, oval or teardrop shape characteristic to Baculitids.

[KimTexan]

4 hours ago, abyssunder said:

The strange is that the specimen in question has an almost round shape in the transverse view, maybe not enough flattened, oval or teardrop shape characteristic to Baculitids.

It is definitely cylindrical. It does not appear to taper any, but I have not measured it. It is definitely not baculite. I have dozens of baculite pieces. Some 10 inches long or so. They are fairly abundant in the North Sulfur River. In the area I hunt they are the most abundant cepholopod.

I need to get out my Texas cepholopod book tonight to see if I see anything like it. Granted it is from Oklahoma.

 

The reason I’m certain it is not baculite is because I found the distinct fossil I mentioned, which I believe are Pennsylvania. These fragments are only a few mm long or wide.

When I picked this up it was covered with dirt so I couldn’t tell what it was, but I knew it was likely characteristic of a geological period. I just washed it off and a couple more things showed up. I think the white piece may be Fenestella or Polypora. I don’t know my Pennsylvanian fossils, but I believe these are Pennsylvanian I am sure @BobWill can confirm or eleminate Pennsylvanian. I believe this rules out baculites. I think orthicons were present in the Pennsylvanian. 

 

Were Lituites present in the Pennsylvanian? If so I believe it bears similarities with that. This is a pic I found by googling Lituites.

The segments look slanted and kind of like they have a little lip like mine. The issue is I’m not sure a Lituites Is found in Oklahoma. I don’t think it is.

 

I haven’t seen @Ludwigia or @fifbrindacier comment. Maybe they have some thoughts on it.

[KimTexan]

I just measured it. One end has a diameter of 10.5 mm the other end is 13 mm. The fragment is about 32-33 mm long. So it does taper ever so slightly.

[BobWill]

I cannot confirm Pennsylvanian but I I can't eliminate it either. Fenestella for one can be found from the Ordovician through the Triassic and there could be other periods represented near this area. If it is Pennsylvanian see if it matches anything in the Dallas Paleo's new "Jacksboro Fossil Guide."
Find that and some other useful links here:

https://www.dallaspaleo.org/Jacksboro-Study-Group

[doushantuo]

less than 1 Mb:

nmg_v12_n4_p90.pdf

 

Don't know if the above might help

below:9 to 29 again:S.Gracile

[KimTexan]

2 hours ago, BobWill said:

I cannot confirm Pennsylvanian but I I can't eliminate it either. Fenestella for one can be found from the Ordovician through the Triassic and there could be other periods represented near this area. If it is Pennsylvanian see if it matches anything in the Dallas Paleo's new "Jacksboro Fossil Guide."
Find that and some other useful links here:

https://www.dallaspaleo.org/Jacksboro-Study-Group

The closest formation to where I found it that was not Quaternary was the Desmoinesian, Pennsylvania.

[fifbrindacier]

Hi Kim, you can check that site : http://northtexasfossils.com/washitagroup.htm

[Ludwigia]

7 hours ago, KimTexan said:

 

I haven’t seen @Ludwigia or @fifbrindacier comment. Maybe they have some thoughts on it.

 

Sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with this material to be able to venture any helpful comments.

[KimTexan]

11 hours ago, doushantuo said:

less than 1 Mb:

nmg_v12_n4_p90.pdf

 

Don't know if the above might help

below:9 to 29 again:S.Gracile

Do you have something like that for the Carboniferous? I believe the exposure to be Pennsylvanian. At first I thought it was the Desmoinesian, but I think the Atokian-Morrowan is more likely.

I was near the northwest side of the loop of the river on the bottom right of this map.

These are the descriptions of those layers with the formation names. I think the Golf Course Formation of the Dornick Hills Group best describes it and seems to be likely to underlay the Quaternary area I was in.

 

I looked in the Pennsylvanian Atlas of Ancient Life and this is the closest I can get. It’s a type of Psudoorthoceras

http://pennsylvanianatlas.org/species/pseudorthoceras-knoxense/

Although it doesn’t really look like my specimen, the Boggy Formation is might be an hour away from where I found it. It’s the only straight cepholopod noted in the state as far as I can find.