Jump to content

Dpaul7

Recommended Posts

Our new memb er SERENKO3 and I went on a good morning's hunting!  The first area had plant AND Marine Fossils, in Northern Somerset County... in shale and what I think is limestone.  The shale fossils were plant; the limestone apparently marine!  Serenko3 found some beauties; I got a couple nice ones, too!  The second site - Pennsylvanian shale - Serenko3 found a REALLY nice and large Worthenia Gastropod.  (I got a baby one!) Also Belleraphon and Turitella gastropods... This site also has crinoid stems and bivalves. No pictures yet from the second site... The pieces shown are all from the first site.  Please comment on what you think these are.... I will post photos requesting ID confirmations.  I THINK we have some coral, and a Bryzoan or two.  The first marine fossil was from Serenko3 - He will post MORE photos when he gets a chance (there is what I THINK is a beautiful brytzoan!!!!).  The other marine fossils were from MY haul... and the plant ones at the end, also.  Again, please comment - the rocks full of holes... LOOK like ash, but they are the same type of rock as the marine fossils!  I have NOT cleaned any of these yer  (some need a water bath).  Thanks for your attention!

FRANK 1.jpg

FRANK 2.jpg

FRANK 3.jpg

FRANK 4.jpg

FRANK 5.jpg

FRANK 6.jpg

FRANK 7.jpg

FRANK 8.jpg

FRANK 9.jpg

FRANK 10.jpg

FRANK 11.jpg

FRANK 12.jpg

IMG_8137.JPG

IMG_8142.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first image seems to be the colonial rugose  coral Lithostrotion. 

Second is a leaf of Neuropteris as are several of the others.

The second from last looks like a species of the tabulate coral family Favositdae, does it continue through the rock or is it just an encrustation? 

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice variety of Neuropteris leaves, I bet those will clean up nicely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

The first image seems to be the colonial rugose  coral Lithostrotion. 

Second is a leaf of Neuropteris as are several of the others.

The second from last looks like a species of the tabulate coral family Favositdae, does it continue through the rock or is it just an encrustation? 

It APPEARS on the surface of the rock... on the other (uncleaned as yet) side, there are some of the rugose corals.  I HAD thought perhaps a bryzoan fan at first... I cannot tell how DEEP the possible favositdae goes.... Serenko3 has a much better one, he will post later, I hope.  We probably brought back 100 pounds of rock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys picked up some cool stuff! Glad that you had success on your hunt!

Dipleurawhisperer5.jpg

I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice plants!

“...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

Happy hunting,

Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome finds! Love the texture of the first one. Thanks for sharing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you had a great time. I would love to see your gastropod finds from the second site and any other fossils you found there. Living in the Hudson Valley I don't have easy access to marine Pennsylvanian sites- the nearest being in western PA. I did get out to a site in western PA a couple years ago and found a number of  gastropods, horn corals, and a very tiny trilobite pygidium. I would love to learn more about the marine Pennsylvanian sites in western PA. Thanks for sharing your finds from the first site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jeffrey P said:

Sounds like you had a great time. I would love to see your gastropod finds from the second site and any other fossils you found there. Living in the Hudson Valley I don't have easy access to marine Pennsylvanian sites- the nearest being in western PA. I did get out to a site in western PA a couple years ago and found a number of  gastropods, horn corals, and a very tiny trilobite pygidium. I would love to learn more about the marine Pennsylvanian sites in western PA. Thanks for sharing your finds from the first site.

We are IN Western PA - Johnstown, to be exact!  SERENKO3 found the gastropods this trip... I'm a bit old for that type of climbing... and I'd hauled about 40 pounds of rocks for almost 2 miles.  I was just up in the Hudson Valley Saturday and Sunday - I wish we could have stopped along some of the road cuts!

At our LOCAL marine site in the suburbs, one finds Worthenia and Bellerapahon and Turitella gastropods; bivalves, crinoid STEMS and horn coral - there are sites in the next county where entire crinoids have been found in limestone... also coral!  I will see if Serenko3 has the gastropod photos ready to post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think the first coral is Lithostrontion (properly referred to as Acrophyllum; Lithostrontion does not occur in North America).  Acrophyllum has a complex dissepimentarium, and the tabulae are irregular/not flat.  The coralites in the first specimen have flat tabulae and no evidence of dissepiments.  To me they strongly resemble the Silurian coral Pycnostylus, which is common in some Silurian formations.  Any chance that you have Silurian and Pennsylvanian rocks in close proximity?  Were the corals in situ, or in loose rock that might have neem dumped at the site?

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

I do not think the first coral is Lithostrontion (properly referred to as Acrophyllum; Lithostrontion does not occur in North America).  Acrophyllum has a complex dissepimentarium, and the tabulae are irregular/not flat.  The coralites in the first specimen have flat tabulae and no evidence of dissepiments.  To me they strongly resemble the Silurian coral Pycnostylus, which is common in some Silurian formations.  Any chance that you have Silurian and Pennsylvanian rocks in close proximity?  Were the corals in situ, or in loose rock that might have neem dumped at the site?

 

Don

These were sort of "dump" rocks.  Although FOUND in Somerset County, they could be from neighboring BEDFORD county.  (I can explain in a private message).  These rocks could be, I believe,  “Helderberg” limestones - Early Devonian Period, if from Bedford. Yes, Silurian IS possible. (I would know for certain if I had a better strata map).  Here is a geologic map of Pennsylvania. My county, Cambria, is mostly Pennsylvanian.  To the south-east is Bedford County - Silurian rock IS there! And certainly Pennsylvanian!  If the specimens ARE Somerset County, then Pennsylvanian is a possibility.  Somerset County has Greenbriar limestone - Mississippian - but that is further south of Central City.

 

A lot of uncertainties!  I would bet the farm these pieces ORIGINATED here in Western Pennsylvania.  And from collecting years ago, I DO think Bedford County. There are limestone quarries there; some abandoned.  Johnstown is a steel city; coal and limestone were both brought in from surrounding areas.  I will do some further study on my specimens - You bring up some interesting points!

GEOLOGIC MAP OF PENNSYLVANIA.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2018 at 3:59 PM, FossilDAWG said:

I do not think the first coral is Lithostrontion (properly referred to as Acrophyllum; Lithostrontion does not occur in North America).  Acrophyllum has a complex dissepimentarium, and the tabulae are irregular/not flat.  The coralites in the first specimen have flat tabulae and no evidence of dissepiments.  To me they strongly resemble the Silurian coral Pycnostylus, which is common in some Silurian formations.  Any chance that you have Silurian and Pennsylvanian rocks in close proximity?  Were the corals in situ, or in loose rock that might have neem dumped at the site?

 

Don

Hello again - I'm sorry, but I was a bit confused here. I have seen references to Lithostrontion, so I do not disagree... but Acrophyllum - threw me for a loop for a bit! I DID find reference to it as a coral in Fossilworks... Wikipedia said:  Acrophyllum may refer to: Acrophyllum (plant), a plant genus Acrophyllum (insect), a cricket genus. :headscratch:

 

THANKFULLY - The Fossil Forum had a great photo of a similar piece you had helped to identify. And I DO agree Pycnostylus.  Lithostrontion was a VERY similar one... and I appreciate the folks who suggested it; it helped guide me to RUGOSE CORAL!

 

One final note:  Today I received the book THE RUGOSE CORAL GENERA. (G . Cotton, 1973)  Pycnostylus is listed & described.  (For now, it may as well be in Hindi!!!! :(- Need more study of terminology)  I was REALLY hoping for some illustrations.  The IDENTIFICATION KEY - Well, it REALLY looks wonderful, but I think it is written in Klingon!  I (currently) have NO IDEA how to use it.  They give description, then a number which seems meaningless (I have NOT yet found an explanation).  I hope someday to be able to understand it a bit more!

 

I've downloaded more books from archive.org - and sent for Index Fossils of North America, by Harvey W Shimer & Robert R Shrock 1944 - 

I hope it will be of some help!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:22 PM, Dpaul7 said:

We are IN Western PA - Johnstown, to be exact!  SERENKO3 found the gastropods this trip... I'm a bit old for that type of climbing... and I'd hauled about 40 pounds of rocks for almost 2 miles.  I was just up in the Hudson Valley Saturday and Sunday - I wish we could have stopped along some of the road cuts!

At our LOCAL marine site in the suburbs, one finds Worthenia and Bellerapahon and Turitella gastropods; bivalves, crinoid STEMS and horn coral - there are sites in the next county where entire crinoids have been found in limestone... also coral!  I will see if Serenko3 has the gastropod photos ready to post!

I'll have to check out some of those western PA sites someday, maybe next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dpaul7 said:

Hello again - I'm sorry, but I was a bit confused here. I have seen references to Lithostrontion, so I do not disagree... but Acrophyllum - threw me for a loop for a bit! I DID find reference to it as a coral in Fossilworks... Wikipedia said:  Acrophyllum may refer to: Acrophyllum (plant), a plant genus Acrophyllum (insect), a cricket genus. :headscratch:

 

THANKFULLY - The Fossil Forum had a great photo of a similar piece you had helped to identify. And I DO agree Pycnostylus.  Lithostrontion was a VERY similar one... and I appreciate the folks who suggested it; it helped guide me to RUGOSE CORAL!

 

One final note:  Today I received the book THE RUGOSE CORAL GENERA. (G . Cotton, 1973)  Pycnostylus is listed & described.  (For now, it may as well be in Hindi!!!! :(- Need more study of terminology)  I was REALLY hoping for some illustrations.  The IDENTIFICATION KEY - Well, it REALLY looks wonderful, but I think it is written in Klingon!  I (currently) have NO IDEA how to use it.  They give description, then a number which seems meaningless (I have NOT yet found an explanation).  I hope someday to be able to understand it a bit more!

 

I've downloaded more books from archive.org - and sent for Index Fossils of North America, by Harvey W Shimer & Robert R Shrock 1944 - 

I hope it will be of some help!

 

If you google "Acrophyllum coral" you will get many links.  Google ranks links according to how many people click on them.  Many more people click on links regarding modern ornamental plants compared to links regarding Carboniferous corals, so if you google "Acrophyllum" you will get many pages of links to the plant before you see any links to the coral.

 

The rules governing scientific names allow the same name to be used if the organisms are in different kingdoms, so Acrophyllum can be used legitimately for a plant and a coral.  On the other hand, a name can be used only once within a kingdom.  The cricket genus Acrophyllum was described by Beier in 1960, and the coral genus Acrophyllum was described by Thompson and Nicholson in 1873.  As the coral genus was described first, that name is valid.  The name is preoccupied and so it is not available to be used for the cricket genus; that genus will have to be renamed.

 

You should be aware that although "Index Fossils of North America" has some usefulness, especially for the excellent illustrations, many of the names are out of date.  If you ID your fossil with something in the Index, you can google the name from the Index to see if a more current name is available.  Even there, you should be aware (as Acrophyllum demonstrates) that Google is not always up to date.  It is likely that Google Scholar would give better results.

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

If you google "Acrophyllum coral" you will get many links.  Google ranks links according to how many people click on them.  Many more people click on links regarding modern ornamental plants compared to links regarding Carboniferous corals, so if you google "Acrophyllum" you will get many pages of links to the plant before you see any links to the coral.

 

The rules governing scientific names allow the same name to be used if the organisms are in different kingdoms, so Acrophyllum can be used legitimately for a plant and a coral.  On the other hand, a name can be used only once within a kingdom.  The cricket genus Acrophyllum was described by Beier in 1960, and the coral genus Acrophyllum was described by Thompson and Nicholson in 1873.  As the coral genus was described first, that name is valid.  The name is preoccupied and so it is not available to be used for the cricket genus; that genus will have to be renamed.

 

You should be aware that although "Index Fossils of North America" has some usefulness, especially for the excellent illustrations, many of the names are out of date.  If you ID your fossil with something in the Index, you can google the name from the Index to see if a more current name is available.  Even there, you should be aware (as Acrophyllum demonstrates) that Google is not always up to date.  It is likely that Google Scholar would give better results.

 

Don

Don,

That was my plan all along! I had learned that MANY things have (and do) changed in classifications and names.  With some of my fossils, exploring data about them has shown me this! My thought was, if I can use the book (and older versions of it I have from online) I SHOULD be able to come up with a reasonable identification!When all else fails... SOMEONE here on the Forum knows and can help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...