Jump to content

Kurufossils

Recommended Posts

On 8/24/2018 at 9:34 AM, doushantuo said:

Sphinctozoan sponges are known from the Cambrian onwards

 

Okay....???  :headscratch:

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

It does look similar, but taking into consideration the stratigraphical differences, (because we kinda have to) I think is just confuses the issue to mention it if it doesn't appear to be a possibility. :unsure: 

I think that Ben, has a valid point to suggest that it might be Amblysiphonella. Just because Fossilworks does not mention that it occurs in the Devonian rocks from New York does not mean that it should not be considered. Fossilworks mentions that it can be found elsewhere as early as the Cambrian. Fossilworks often does not include records of fossil occurances at localities and times in which the literature and my observations suggest that they occur. The completeness of Fossilwork's records could be better. Supplement Fossilwork's information with other sources.

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

22 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

I think that Ben, has a valid point to suggest that it might be Amblysiphonella. Just because Fossilworks does not mention that it occurs in the Devonian rocks from New York does not mean that it should not be considered. Fossilworks mentions that it can be found elsewhere as early as the Cambrian. Fossilworks often does not include records of fossil occurances at localities and times in which the literature and my observations suggest that they occur. The completeness of Fossilwork's records could be better. Supplement Fossilwork's information with other sources.

 

 

John,

I understand your point, and agree to a certain extent, ... but I cannot find any mention of it in the Devonian of the United States. There are occurrences  in the Ordovician, Silurian, Late Pennsylvanian, and Permian of the US. in the Midwest, California and Alaska.  All pretty far away, both geographically and stratigraphically. 


While it is conceivable  that this could be a new find,  and could be Amblysiphonella, ... it makes more sense to me that it could be something that has already been found in the area. :unsure: 

 

Guesses, and opinions are always welcome to be posted, but for ID purposes, it is better to have some pertinent information to back up a possible ID. :) 

 

New York tends to use it's own rocks from quarries in state for drainage and roadwork projects.

If the OP had said that the rock came from a quarry out of state, then we could consider the Amblysiphonella as a plausible, possible ID. ;) 

 

  • I found this Informative 1

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at a bit of a loss on this one.  I think the "bulb" might be to some degree an artifact of that piece being more exposed than the other segments, and the fact that it is broken giving more of a circular appearance.  However the photos do not seem to me to unambiguously include/exclude either sponge or worn cephalopod.  I think someone would have to see the specimen in hand, and maybe have polished sections cut, to be sure of any ID.

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I do not have the tools or prep know how to do any work on this piece, I'm also afraid of breaking it further. I found something quite similar to this that is alot more broken, I don't know if its the same sort of specimen but it has a similar shape.

 

@FossilDAWG  @Fossildude19  

IMG_20180824_124637562.jpg

IMG_20180824_124630429.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to have a median longitudinal section of the specimen in question (OP) for a better understanding of what it could be, but I'm in the sponge camp. :)

" 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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...