BenWorrell Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Hey all, I found this slab of rock in a Linn County, IA creek this spring and I'm not sure how these patterns might have formed. Are they trace fossils from something? Did they form for normal geological processes? It's hard to pin down age of rocks in a creek like this, but most of our exposures are Devonian or Silurian. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Look like feeding traces to Me. 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...
BenWorrell Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, ynot said: Look like feeding traces to Me. Any ideas what critters would make those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, BenWorrell said: Any ideas what critters would make those? Most trace fossils can not be credited to any particular species. Maybe @abyssunder can be a little more specific. 1 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...
MeargleSchmeargl Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Creek name? There are known exposures from the Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Cretaceous and Pleistocene in the area. Knowing what creek it is would at least help with age. 1 Every single fossil you see is a miracle set in stone, and should be treated as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 17 minutes ago, ynot said: Look like feeding traces to Me. They look like the finished product to me. Coprolites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Rockwood said: They look like the finished product to me. Coprolites Could be, but aren't those feeding traces also. Maybe @GeschWhat or @Carl can chime in on this. 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...
Rockwood Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, ynot said: Could be, but aren't those feeding traces also. Not at my table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeargleSchmeargl Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, ynot said: Could be, but aren't those feeding traces also. Maybe @GeschWhat or @Carl can chime in on this. *shudders* that reminds me a little too much about my dogs that eat linkin' logs. Every single fossil you see is a miracle set in stone, and should be treated as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Something else to consider: echinoid spines. Better up close photos will help. If they are are straight segments and do not branch, trace fossils are less likely. @BenWorrell Can you get a better photo? If not, describe the structures. Are they straight, do they branch? Are they connected to each other? What type of ornamentation do they have? 2 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 A photo of them dry would be best in my experience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenWorrell Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 Here is a closer dry photo... I can't make out any substructures, just the bigger shapes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Thanks for the additional picture. I still think they are feeding trace fossils. 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...
DPS Ammonite Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Probable not echinoid spines; too curvy. They look segmented. Could they be parts of crinoids other than stems? Do these fizz in acid? Do they scratch with a knife blade? I am trying to see if they might be limestone. My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 It is probably a piece of “Anamosa Stone”. The rods are a common feature. Here’s another thread that talks about them- http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58618-could-someone-help-me-to-id-these-small-fossils/&tab=comments#comment-624301 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 I was surprised to read that they are referred to as rods. Dry I can more easily envision them being feeding traces as ynot suggests. The mention of stromatolite sheets would seem to support the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenWorrell Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 16 minutes ago, Al Dente said: It is probably a piece of “Anamosa Stone”. The rods are a common feature. Here’s another thread that talks about them- http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58618-could-someone-help-me-to-id-these-small-fossils/&tab=comments#comment-624301 I think you're onto something Al Dente, those do look very similar. Sounds like maybe coprolite or worm tunnels, but nobody really knows in those "Anamosa Stones". Thanks! I don't have concentrated acid on hand, but it didn't fizz with apple cider vinegar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 3 hours ago, BenWorrell said: , but it didn't fizz with apple cider vinegar. This indicates that the stone is not calcium carbonate (limestone). Edit - missed the didn't 2 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...
GeschWhat Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 I was paging through the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (W), but my copy is very old (1975). "Unilobal feeding structures," are a possibility, but I don't know if that is even a legitimate type of trace fossil now. If they were coprolites, I would generally expect their composition to differ from the matrix. However, that isn't always the case with things like worms, nudibranchs (sea slugs), and the like that feed on nutrients in sediment. Check out this guy: 1 Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Maybe there were a bunch of acorn worms like this guy... 2 Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Al Dente said: It is probably a piece of “Anamosa Stone”. The rods are a common feature. Here’s another thread that talks about them- http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58618-could-someone-help-me-to-id-these-small-fossils/&tab=comments#comment-624301 By Jove I think you've got it. Anamosa, Iowa, where the stone was quarried, is just east of Linn County. Anamosa stone is a Silurian dolomitic limestone. Dolomites do not fizz much in household vinegar. 2 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Sometimes, it's extremely difficult to assign an ichnofossil to its maker, as Tony said it before in an elegant manner. Geological settings would be important for any ID, especially in the realm of traces, also the ichnofacies might be on help. Unfortunately, I don't know the "Anamosa Stone", but the features of the specimen in question reminds me of Lockeia or appropriate. Similar to the OP's specimen might be the one below, from the Bright Angel Shale. picture from here 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...
MeargleSchmeargl Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Intruiging... Every single fossil you see is a miracle set in stone, and should be treated as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 20 hours ago, ynot said: Could be, but aren't those feeding traces also. Maybe @GeschWhat or @Carl can chime in on this. I'm thinking not coprolites here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenWorrell Posted July 5, 2018 Author Share Posted July 5, 2018 @abyssunder Those Lockeia are strikingly similar! Thank you very much! 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