Strange Fossil

[kingpotatoman]

I found this while breaking fossil rocks looking for some interesting subjects and came across this, most if not all fossils in this area (Ohio) are from the Mississippian period where I’m digging. Please give any info on this I have never seen anything like it.

[Peat Burns]

Looks like two shells here.  One is possibly a productid brachiopod.  Another possibility would be a bivalve, but I'm not sure which if any bivalves from that time and place have the little spines.

[FossilSniper]

Just a note: 
I'm in Ohio, and my fossils are Ordovician!


Both #1  and #2 are bivalves. Since these are from the Mississippian period, I don't completely reassure myself with this ID, since my fossil bivalves are from the Ordovician.
But I still think both are bivalves.

[FossilSniper]

2 minutes ago, Peat Burns said:

 I'm not sure which if any bivalves from that time and place have the little spines.

Hmm.
I can't see the spines, which do you mean? 

[Peat Burns]

4 minutes ago, FossilSniper said:

Hmm.
I can't see the spines, which do you mean? 

[Herb]

maybe plant rootlets ?

 

[FossilSniper]

24 minutes ago, Peat Burns said:

Hm.
How could I miss something so obvious? Thanks for the pointer.

This is a very strange piece, but I still think it is still some kind of bivalve.

[Peat Burns]

8 minutes ago, FossilSniper said:

Hm.
How could I miss something so obvious? Thanks for the pointer.

This is a very strange piece, but I still think it is still some kind of bivalve.

I wanted to say bivalve in the worst way because of the nature of the growth lines and apparent lack of plications, but the incompleteness and thus uncertainty of its symmetry, coupled with the spines makes me lean brachiopod until someone shows us a bivalve with little spines like that from that time and place.  Brachs with spines like that are common in the Mississippian. 

[FossilSniper]

2 minutes ago, Peat Burns said:

I wanted to say bivalve in the worst way because of the nature of the growth lines and apparent lack of plications, but the incompleteness and thus uncertainty of its symmetry, coupled with the spines makes me lean brachiopod until someone shows us a bivalve with little spines like that from that time and place.

Just what I intended to get across. 

[Peat Burns]

Another interesting feature to note are what appears to be punctae on the shell, although I'd be surprised if it ended up being terebratulida 

 

 perhaps those are tiny spines rather than punctae

[Spongy Joe]

From those spines, it does look likely to be a broken half of a productid, which makes it look like a bivalve... but that would be a short hinge line, if so. A confusing one!

[kingpotatoman]

I’m pretty sure the spines use to be longer lines because of the lines connecting to some of the spines, if that makes sense.

[minnbuckeye]

This information is presented in your other ID post: Summit County Has Devonian rocks in the lower valleys, otherwise the bedrock is Mississippian.   Just throwing this out for the experts at identification to use. . Anyways, VERY INTERESING FIND. I will look on as the answers come in.

[Peat Burns]

3 hours ago, kingpotatoman said:

I’m pretty sure the spines use to be longer lines because of the lines connecting to some of the spines, if that makes sense.

 

Those new photos are very helpful.  Now I see what I thought was 2 shells are actually spines attached to the one shell.  

 

I can't think of it being anything but a productid brachiopod, possibly in the family echinoconchidae.  The spines are very robust.  I don't have any reference material with me at the moment to suggest a species.

 

I'm guessing this comes from the lower Mississippian Cuyahoga formation?   

 

Here's a link to a dissertation on the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Cuyahoga Fm.

 

Cuyahoga Fm.

 

Nice find! If I had found that, I'd be very pleased.

 

 

[Wrangellian]

I have nothing to back this up with, but if it helps, my first thought immediately was half a brachiopod valve with long spines. The nubs could be either broken spines or just spines that did not grow as long as the long ones...?