KimTexan Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 I had posted this piece in General Fossil Discussion area since it had my first trilobite on it. Someone message me saying that they thought it may be an echinoderm. The person said “that looks like an echinoderm ("calcichordate")fragment. Possibly the M1-M4 of a stylophoran(marginale elements)” I thought it was a form of bryozoan. However, I do not know the Mississippian or any Carboniferous fossils very well. So I’m willing to admit complete ignorance. Can anyone ID it and educate me as what it is? I found it in Siloam Springs, Arkansas in an area which Mancos identified as the Pitkin Limestone, which is Mississippian. ROCKD ID’d the area as St. Joe’s limestone. This is the item in question. I can’t say that I have seen segmented Bryozoa. The segments aren’t uniform in size. Although, I’m not sure if the segments are endemic or an artifact of being broken. I believe they are breaks. It is about 1.25 inches long and 7 mm wide. Just a slightly zoomed in pic of the same thing. A pic of the end. This is is a pic of the back side of the other side of the plate and other end of it, where there is a cross section honeycomb looking view. Your thoughts and comments would would be greatly appreciated. Kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeschWhat Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Lori www.areallycrappystory.com/fossils www.facebook.com/fossilpoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 Hum, no thoughts? Maybe one of you may have an idea. @doushantuo @Herb, @Pachy @Peat Burns @TqB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Looks bryozoan to Me. But I do not know echinoids very well. 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...
KimTexan Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 54 minutes ago, ynot said: Looks bryozoan to Me. But I do not know echinoids very well. I know urchins well and crinoids a little. The rest I don’t know, but I’ve never seen any so porous. Ive been trying to find Bryozoa, but I haven’t found one like this yet. There are 2-3, maybe more other types of Bryozoa on the plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullsnake Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I would consider Fistulipora. 1 Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I say bryozoan. I won't even try to go further than that. You might be able to narrow it down based on macroscopic characteristics if you had a species list for that site. Otherwise it's acetate peels and microscopy in all likelihood. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 22 minutes ago, Peat Burns said: I say bryozoan. I won't even try to go further than that. You might be able to narrow it down based on macroscopic characteristics if you had a species list for that site. Otherwise it's acetate peels and microscopy in all likelihood. I have a microscope I bought when I was doing my clinical training. It’s pretty nice, but nothing I could easily look at fossils with unless they were small enough to fit under the objectives. I need to see if I can convert it to a dissecting type scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 I am wondering if it could be something like Rhombopora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peat Burns Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 13 minutes ago, KimTexan said: I have a microscope I bought when I was doing my clinical training. It’s pretty nice, but nothing I could easily look at fossils with unless they were small enough to fit under the objectives. I need to see if I can convert it to a dissecting type scope. How to make an acetate peel With an acetate peel, you may be able to use a microscope on low power (50x) since the acetates are transparent and sandwiched between microscope slides. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I've got very similar bryozoans from the UK Carboniferous put down as Tabulipora and the genus occurs in the USA. But as @Peat Burns says, you're likely to need microscopic detail of sections (and a specialist) for positive ID on these. 1 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 looks like a coral to me , Kim "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 12 hours ago, Herb said: looks like a coral to me , Kim Hum, what features indicate to you that it is coral? I’m trying to educate myself by asking such questions. I haven’t found that kind of coral there before. There is horn coral in the area and lots of Bryozoa of various kinds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 list of Pitkin Bryozoa from: Easton, W.H. 1943 The fauna of the Pitkin Formation of Arkansas. Journal of Paleontology, 17(2):125-154 Anisotrypa solida Ulrich Archimedes sp. Archimedes communis (Ulrich) Archimedes distans (Ulrich) Archimedes intermedia (Ulrich) Archimedes invaginata (Ulrich) Archimedes proutana (Ulrich) Archimedes swallovana (Hall) Batostomella sp. Chilotrypa regularis n. sp. Dichotrypa levis n. sp. Dyscritella? sp. Fenestella [Fenestrellina] sp. Fistulipora introspinosa n. sp. Glyptopora michelinia (Prout) Glyptopora crassa n. sp. Lyropora solida n. sp. Meekopora abrupta n. sp. Meekopora tenuis n. sp. Polypora sp. Polypora cf. P. whitei Ulrich Rhombopora sp. Septopora cf. S. biserialis Swallow Septopora cestriensis Prout Septopora subquadrans Ulrich Tabulipora cestriensis (Ulrich) Tabulipora microfistulata n. sp. Tabulipora poculoformis n. sp. Tabulipora reflexa n. sp. Tabulipora subtilis n. sp. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 Ah, Rhombophora is in the list, but I have no idea what any of the others look like. Someone who knows the area a little said the Pitkin was higher up. I was going off of what Mancos told me since I haven’t learned my formations there yet. I tend to agree though. The Pitkin outcrops I’ve been to are higher up and full of crinoids. There is Pitkin a few miles away. I tend to think this is more like the Boone formation closer to the St. Joe though, which is at the bottom of the Boone and lower Mississippian. But the list is helpful, because I have bryozo from the Pitkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 6 hours ago, KimTexan said: Hum, what features indicate to you that it is coral? I’m trying to educate myself by asking such questions. I haven’t found that kind of coral there before. There is horn coral in the area and lots of Bryozoa of various kinds. The pores are too small for a coral. There is some overlap but these are well below the diameter you'd get in, say, a favositid. Otherwise, they can look very similar! It isn't Rhombopora - the apertures in that are arranged in a regular pattern. I still think Tabulipora is a good possibility. 1 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 On 7/26/2018 at 10:47 PM, KimTexan said: I have a microscope I bought when I was doing my clinical training. It’s pretty nice, but nothing I could easily look at fossils with unless they were small enough to fit under the objectives. I need to see if I can convert it to a dissecting type scope. The best way to convert a regular microscope to a dissecting scope is to sell it and use the cash to buy a used dissecting scope. I really think the segmentation of your bryzoan represents fracture lines. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 7 hours ago, TqB said: ...I still think Tabulipora is a good possibility. Gautier, T.G. 1970 Interpretive morphology and taxonomy of bryozoan genus Tabulipora. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 48:1-21 PDF LINK 4 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