Textured stem, ichnofossil or something else?

[ziepe]

Good afternoon everybody!

 

During a fieldtrip in Silesia (Poland) last year I visited a rather large spoiltip looking for plant fossils. The spoils left behind by the mining company indicate they still use (or used) the old method to separate the coal from the surrounding debris, allowing the coal to be 'baked' (e. g. the presence of pyrite that turns into sulphuric acid -h2so4- under the influence of wind and rain, ...) something typical for the majority of spoiltips I visited in Western Europe.

 

Unfortunately I have no detailed geological data on the age of the debris in the spoiltip but there is no doubt this is Silesian (upper Carboniferous) in age. I even tend to think this is Westphalian in age based on the fossils found, but let's keep it to upper Carboniferous to be sure. I found several species of Lepidodendron, some Eusphenopterids, both Stigmaria ficoides and S. stellata, etc...

 

And this never-seen-before 'thing'.

 

My initial thought was that this could be some sort stem/branch but, in my 20 years of collecting Paleozoic plants, I have never seen the repetative triangular pattern that covers the branch (or tube if you like). Perhaps this could be some sort of tracefossil? Since my ichnofossil-knowledge is extremely limited someone here can help me out?

 

The height of the 'tubes' varies between 2 and 3mm.

 

Have a nice day!

Sven

[dalmayshun]

cant help out, but it is certainly beautiful. I am eager to find out opinions about it. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Very interesting.

I think the closest to it would be some club moss branches, but none I've seen are quite like this.

 

[Innocentx]

Possibly a type of graptolithina.

[ziepe]

29 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Very interesting.

I think the closest to it would be some club moss branches, but none I've seen are quite like this.

 

 

Hi Tidgy's Dad,

we can rule out Lycopsid branches due to the lack of microphylls. 

 

Sven

[ziepe]

8 minutes ago, Innocentx said:

Possibly a type of graptolithina.

 

Hi Innocentx,

the graptolithina went extinct in the Mississippian, lower Carboniferous so, stratigraphically these don't match.

 

Sven

 

[Miocene_Mason]

Would say lycopod leaves, but the chevron are not something I’ve seen. I’m interested to see what this turns out to be

Edit: I know realize that Adam suggested this with club moss, which is a lycopod.

[Innocentx]

26 minutes ago, ziepe said:

 graptolithina went extinct in the Mississippian, lower Carboniferous

I don't know how deeply they go in their mining efforts to obtain coal in that area.  Just a thought.

[Innocentx]

I must add... intriguing fossil, very crisp!

[Auspex]

I note that the "tire tracks" do not taper, but are the same width end-to-end. This seems un-plantlike.

Then there is this:

 

If this is a bivalve shell, it may be a clue to the "tire tracks". I have seen fossil 'clam tracks' that are similar to these.

[westcoast]

Protovirgularia?

[ziepe]

14 hours ago, Auspex said:

I note that the "tire tracks" do not taper, but are the same width end-to-end. This seems un-plantlike.

Then there is this:

 

If this is a bivalve shell, it may be a clue to the "tire tracks". I have seen fossil 'clam tracks' that are similar to these.

 

Those are 2 valid points Auspex! That ecosystem was home to a lot of primitive bivalves like Carbonicula and such who are common (and almost stereotypical) for Pennsylvanian deposits. I'll try to make sharper/detailed pictures of the possible bivalve when I return home this evening.

 

[ziepe]

15 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Would say lycopod leaves, but the chevron are not something I’ve seen. I’m interested to see what this turns out to be

Edit: I know realize that Adam suggested this with club moss, which is a lycopod.

 

Microphyllous leaves (typical for Lycopods) have a single vein which divides the leaf in two parts. This distinctive charateristic is missing here.

[ziepe]

7 hours ago, ziepe said:

 

Those are 2 valid points Auspex! That ecosystem was home to a lot of primitive bivalves like Carbonicula and such who are common (and almost stereotypical) for Pennsylvanian deposits. I'll try to make sharper/detailed pictures of the possible bivalve when I return home this evening.

 

 

I can't make any more detailed pictures with my camera. The possible bivalve is a little bit bigger than the height of the so-called "tire tracks": 3-4 mm.
I took a look under a magnifier and it could very well be a bivalve, the specimen is very weathered.  

[TqB]

This bit is intriguing too. (I've lived on the Coal Measures for decades and never seen anything matching this post!)

 

[TqB]

I'm sure everyone has googled around but Climactichnites is worth looking at (although it's Cambrian)...

[ziepe]

Speeking of Googling around...

 

Yesterday I read the following article (recommended by @paleoflor) from the Acta Palaeontologica Polonica:

"Trace fossils from Late Carboniferous storm deposits, Upper Silesia Coal Basin, Poland"

by Arkadiusz Gluszek. (1998)

 

Some "close but no sigar"-matches but overall a good starting point. 

[ziepe]

Follow this link (instead of the embedded PDF preview):

Trace fossils from Late Carboniferous storm deposits, Upper Silesia Coal Basin, Poland

 

 

[abyssunder]

I'm not sure, but you may be in the right direction considering them ichnofossils, Sven.
They look like that for me, something in the line of Nereites, maybe.

 

" Ichnogenus Nereites MacLeay, 1839
Nereites missouriensis (Weller, 1899)
Figs 13A, B.
Material. - Several tens of specimens.
Description. - Iarge forms (Fig. 13B): full relief, loosely meandering, unbranched burrows with segmented infill surrounded by the zone of reworked sediment. The burrows curve in all directions. The filling structure is the most characteristic feature of the burrows. It is formed by irregular, dark, fine-grained menisci separated by lighter sediment similar to the host rock in terms of lithology. The distance between menisci is not constant. It is relatively small or even zero in the horizontal parts of the burrow increasing in the oblique parts. The zone of reworked sediment is commonly faded but still paler than the surrounding sediment and may reveal presence of the transverse structure. The width of the meniscate filling is between 4 and 5 mm. The total width of the burrow is 10 mm. The maximum preserved length is 12 cm.
Small forms (Fig. 13A' B): winding, hońzontal and unbranched burrows, typically preserved as full relief but also as concave hyporelief. The burrows have a dark meniscate filling but menisci are poorly distinguishable making of the infill appear as structureless. Some menisci are separated by sandy films. The infill is framed by the zone of reworked sediment that is paler than the host one.
Internal, leaf-shaped striation can be detected within the best developed lateral parts of the zone. The total width of the burrows is 4 to 9 mm. The faecal core diameter is 1 to 3 mm and is constant along a single burrow. The length can reach 20 cm.
Remarks. - The small forms prevail in the material studied. The large forms have a more distinct meniscate filling. Also, the vertical component of burrow direction is more frequent among the large burrows. This would be explained by lower energy loss of a relatively larger animal, digging through the sediment, in comparison to a smaller one. N. missouriensis has been interpreted as the work of a worm-like, deposit-feeder (Seilacher & Meischner 1965; Conkin & Conkin 1968; Chamberlain 1971; Hantzschel 1975) or other organisms such as mollusks, arthropods, or holothuroids (Rindsberg 1994). "

 

excerpt from Głuszek, A. 1998. Trace fossils from Late Carboniferous storm deposits, Upper Silesia Coal Basin, Poland. Acta Pąlaeontologica Polonica 43(3): 517-546.

[abyssunder]

6 minutes ago, ziepe said:

Follow this link (instead of the embedded PDF preview):

Trace fossils from Late Carboniferous storm deposits, Upper Silesia Coal Basin, Poland

 

 

I cant beleave you had the same idea. I studied it yesterday, but, as always, I'm too late for the party.

[ziepe]

2 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

I cant beleave you had the same idea. 

 

Great minds... 

 

Both Arthrophycus and Nereites show recognisable features compared to the 'thing' I found, but are -in my opinion- not a match.

I'll try to dig deeper into this matter. 

 

[abyssunder]

I would go with trace fossils, cf. Nereites, although I could be wrong on this.

 

picture from here

[Innocentx]

1 hour ago, TqB said:

Climactichnites is worth looking at (although it's Cambrian)..

There's a lot of revision of previous conclusions made regarding fossils, as more material is unearthed. Wouldn't rule it out.

[abyssunder]

Fascinating thread, at least for me!
Tarquin, you may be right!
Innocentx, you have a very clear mind! Thanks for the suggestion of reinterpretation!

 

link

[Innocentx]

1 hour ago, abyssunder said:

Innocentx, you have a very clear mind!