Trilobite ID

[Peat Burns]

@piranha et al.  This specimen was collected in the 1880s.  It's mostly now an internal cast/mold, the exoskeleton having probably fallen off over the years. I had initially, and hastily, assumed it was Isotelus, but after receiving some Dipleura parts and matrix from @Darktooth today, I'm thinking this is actually Dipleura.  Can you confirm or refute?

 

[doushantuo]

Please view this as a general remark,NOT intended to be an id:

Burmeisterid(Simoes/RBras.P/2009)/exfoliated(weathered specimen(I think):

 

 

Sandfordaustraliatrilobithomalonoti.pdf

This paper(3,6 Mb,in miscellaneous libraries here,I presume)contains material that might aid in interpreting this.

 

 

[Jeffrey P]

That appears to match Dipleura specimens that I've collected. The absence of markings on the pygidium is for me the best indicator as well as the broad uniform thorax segments..

[Peat Burns]

3 minutes ago, Jeffrey P said:

That appears to match Dipleura specimens that I've collected. The absence of markings on the pygidium is for me the best indicator as well as the broad uniform thorax segments..

Thank you 

[doushantuo]

from Tomczykowa(APPolon./1975*)

*free access,presumably in miscelllaneous libraries here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Darktooth]

@Peat Burns After viewing this pic I agree it is Dipleura. The pic you sent last night made the pygidium look more round. In this current pic I can tell that part of the pygidium is missing. Plus the details of the body segments are more easily seen.

[DevonianDigger]

I'm going +1 on Dipleura.

[Malcolmt]

Not an iso