Seeking confirmation on branching bryozoa

[Kato]

Hi, while on a walkabout for crinoid calyx found this particular formation having what seems to be a branching bryozoan fossil. This particular formation seemed to be quite full of fan type corrals as well as what I think are branching bryozoa (most in the length of 4"-6"). This one was about 4" long.

 

Would someone kindly confirm the fossil type or please guide me to a correct naming?

 

[Rockwood]

I think your coral is a fenestrate bryozoan, and your bryozoan is the tabulate coral aulopora.

[Kato]

12 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

I think your coral is a fenestrate bryozoan, and your bryozoan is the tabulate coral aulopora.

It seems like I was bassackward in my guesses!

[Herb]

I agree with Rockwood

[BobWill]

 

4 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I think your coral is a fenestrate bryozoan, and your bryozoan is the tabulate coral aulopora.

I agree about the fenestrate forms but I'm wondering how you distinguish the branching tabulate corals from some of the branching bryozoans like Penniretepora?

[Rockwood]

6 hours ago, BobWill said:

 

I agree about the fenestrate forms but I'm wondering how you distinguish the branching tabulate corals from some of the branching bryozoans like Penniretepora?

Granted in this case it is a judgement call. The apparent lack of zooecia, the degree of tapering in the elements, and the (maybe) cup shape just left of center were enough for me. 

[Al Tahan]

If we know where it came from we can tell if it’s aulopora or not. The only time I’ve found aulopora was attached to brachiopods. I always thought it was a really small organism. I was in buffalo so it may be typical for buffalo New York. Maybe where this was found the aulopora are larger? I would need to know more to say for certain 

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Al Tahan said:

If we know where it came from we can tell if it’s aulopora or not. The only time I’ve found aulopora was attached to brachiopods. I always thought it was a really small organism. I was in buffalo so it may be typical for buffalo New York. Maybe where this was found the aulopora are larger? I would need to know more to say for certain 

Knowing where it's from is only a useful tool, not the answer in the back of the book (teachers edition).

The 4" length given may sound big, but divide it by 8 coralites and the dimension seems right to me. Perhaps a different species.  

[Al Tahan]

2 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Knowing where it's from is only a useful tool, not the answer in the back of the book (teachers edition).

The 4" length given may sound big, but divide it by 8 coralites and the dimension seems right to me. Perhaps a different species.  

You’re probably right!

[Kato]

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Knowing where it's from is only a useful tool, not the answer in the back of the book (teachers edition).

The 4" length given may sound big, but divide it by 8 coralites and the dimension seems right to me. Perhaps a different species.  

Although still learning the formations I have  generalized this specimen into the Mississippian Lake Valley Formation. Definitely, I need to go back and look at some other formations to dial it in. The Lake Valley formation is a mud mound type formation. In the Sacramento Mountains it is usually crinoid filled, but apparently some of the mounds have had fenestrate, ramose (branching) and encrusting bryozoans.

 

I am still hopeful I have lucked into one of the random locations where the bryozoans may be found. I'm planning on hiking back in to spend 3-4 hours searching for specimens and trying to dial in the formation as well. That may be difficult due to faulting, bed tilting, igneous intrusions, etc. in many of the canyons.

[Al Tahan]

3 hours ago, Kato said:

Although still learning the formations I have  generalized this specimen into the Mississippian Lake Valley Formation. Definitely, I need to go back and look at some other formations to dial it in. The Lake Valley formation is a mud mound type formation. In the Sacramento Mountains it is usually crinoid filled, but apparently some of the mounds have had fenestrate, ramose (branching) and encrusting bryozoans.

 

I am still hopeful I have lucked into one of the random locations where the bryozoans may be found. I'm planning on hiking back in to spend 3-4 hours searching for specimens and trying to dial in the formation as well. That may be difficult due to faulting, bed tilting, igneous intrusions, etc. in many of the canyons.

Well this information makes me think more branching bryozoan....can you get a super close up shot of the surface? The surface detail would be very helpful. 

[Kato]

On 12/23/2018 at 8:13 PM, Al Tahan said:

Well this information makes me think more branching bryozoan....can you get a super close up shot of the surface? The surface detail would be very helpful. 

Unfortunately, I've only my cell camera and it lacks sufficient pixels to zoom as needed. Anyway, a couple of zooms...from my perspective too grainy to be of much use.

 

Correction on length = 3" not 4"

 

 

[Kato]

On 12/23/2018 at 10:41 AM, Rockwood said:

Knowing where it's from is only a useful tool, not the answer in the back of the book (teachers edition).

The 4" length given may sound big, but divide it by 8 coralites and the dimension seems right to me. Perhaps a different species.  

This is of a different specimen but it may prove to be better at diagnosing

 

 

[Kato]

Tossing this crazy mix shot in because it just looks neat and a lot is going on

 

[Kato]

 

On 12/23/2018 at 1:12 AM, Rockwood said:

Granted in this case it is a judgement call. The apparent lack of zooecia, the degree of tapering in the elements, and the (maybe) cup shape just left of center were enough for me. 

Rockwood, are these the cup like shapes you were talking about?

 

Right side of this pic

 

Center of this one. This was a rock having the TBD specimen types in it and some tiny crinoid column bits. Maybe this is something different? About 1/4" wide x 1/2" long...much bigger than the above.

[Rockwood]

Yes 

20 minutes ago, Kato said:

Rockwood, are these the cup like shapes you were talking about?

Yes. The rim on it appears to be missing though. Just to the right of the larger coral in the second picture is a good exposure of a coralite in side view. All around it are instructive views as to the nature of them.

I think the second one must be a rugose coral. The septa in aulopora are tiny.

[Kato]

7 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Yes 

Yes. The rim on it appears to be missing though. Just to the right of the larger coral in the second picture is a good exposure of a coralite in side view. All around it are instructive views as to the nature of them.

I think the second one must be a rugose coral. The septa in aulopora are tiny.

Rockwood, okay my bad for posting multiple pics in one post

 

Aw, I do see the rugose coral possibility. I am used to finding them in different formations and not so small.

 

Lastly, is the thought in the original pic that it was a branching bryozoan? Or are you sticking with aulopora

[Rockwood]

12 minutes ago, Kato said:

Or are you sticking with aulopora

Like glue.