If this is a trace fossil, does it have a scientific name?

[corporateidentity 4]

Hello everyone!

 

I found this specimen also in a creek on a walk through a local park north of Pittsburgh.  Thinking it may be a burrow fossil, but if it is, was wondering if there is an actual scientific name for it, so I know how to file it away accordingly under the proper name.  Found the term Cruziana online, and wondering if this would qualify.  Does anyone have any opinions? Or, if it is a burrow, is there any way of narrowing down what might have made it i.e. trilobites/arthropods etc?

 

Details:

 

1) Found in isolation/there were no other similar pieces nearby. 

 

2) Measures about 8-12 inches long. Burrow notches are about the width of a penny.

 

3) Again, found in Carboniferous territory in Western Pennsylvania found in a creek.

 

Thanks everyone!

 

 

[Innocentx 886]

Very nice and definitely traces. Maybe palaeophycus. 

[Pumpkinhead 135]

Cruziana is a term generally applied to trace fossils originating from trilobites (or other arthropods). Cruziana ichnofossils result from the movement of a partially buried trilobite through mud and will appear as bilateral trackways with furrows oriented obliquely to the direction of movement, like this image from Sam Gon III's excellent website:

At the end is the resting trace, or Rusophycus. I don't think that what you have would qualify as Cruziana but it's definitely burrows. There isn't a way of definitively determining what specific organism caused those structures, but some common culprits for burrows include worms and shrimp. Great fossil and thanks for sharing. Here's a link with more info on trilobite specific trace fossils: http://www.trilobites.info/trace.htm

[Scylla 1,603]

Looks like palaeophycus Like this

[Herb 1,093]

I agree with Scylla and Innocentx

[corporateidentity 4]

Thanks everyone!  I looked it up and I definitely think that's what it is. 

 

I appreciate it because I know I never would have found those links or that term.

 

I'll file this away under Palaeophycus

 

[westcoast 397]

It does indeed look like Palaeophycus however it does appear to branch in a couple of places which would rule that ichngenus out. But that might just be preservation of overlying burrows.

[piranha 7,141]

1 hour ago, westcoast said:

It does indeed look like Palaeophycus however it does appear to branch in a couple of places which would rule that ichngenus out. But that might just be preservation of overlying burrows.

 

 

According to the Treatise volume (W Trace Fossils) Palaeophycus does occasionally exhibit a branching habit.

 

Here is a more detailed explanation from:

 

Pemberton, S.G., & Frey, R.W. 1982

Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma.

Journal of Paleontology, 56(4):843-881

 

Thus, the original description of Palaeophycus (Hall, 1847) clearly stated that specimens may be branched or unbranched.  Furthermore, although Nicholson (1873) and Nicholson and Hinde (1875) did not specifically mention the presence or absence of branching, they did indicate the frequent occurrence of crossovers.  In fossil form, crossovers and interpenetrations can give the impression of branching; in fact, apparent branching in some specimens is virtually impossible to distinguish from true branching.  In addition, such simple, criteria proffer the possibility that among congeneric burrow systems fragmented and scattered by weathering processes, all unbranched segments would be assigned to Planolites, whereas all branched segments would be assigned to Palaeophycus.  Therefore, Alpert's (1975) contention that branching can be used as a taxonomic character not only is at odds with the original designations of both forms but also is impractical and misleading.  To compound matters further, Alpert, although attempting a systematic revision of Planolites (based solely on the literature; type material was not examined), did not do the same for Palaeophycus.  To present criteria for distinguishing two closely related ichnotaxa without full comprehension of the systematics of both seems inconsistent and inadequate...  ...True branching may or may not be present in either genus.

[abyssunder 5,574]

" ... Palaeophycus is a lined burrow filled with sediments typically identical to those of the surrounding matrix. " (Pemberton & Frey,1982)