Jump to content
Recker

Ordovician Brachiopod hashplate id?

Recommended Posts

Tidgy's Dad

I love prepping with pins as well.:)

It's amazing the results one can achieve with a little patience. 

Plus 1 for Cincinnetina meeki. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
On 1/21/2019 at 12:03 AM, Plantguy said:

Looks cool. take your time...thats one of the lessons I learned aside from wearing safety glasses and using magnification and not doing prepwork on the kitchen table. 

 

So here's the plate I have. I did live in Louisville for a time and did some collecting around there but this was purely an impulse buy. I cant take credit for finding it, nor prepping it--someone else gets all that credit. Just thought it was cool with the brachs and other small bits of trilobites, bryozoans and crinoids and I was using it and other examples to teach scouts about geology/fossils. 

Waynesville Formation, Ordovician, St. Leon, Indiana

@Herb @Peat Burns What do you all think...Mostly Cincinnetina meeki ? and possibly others? 

 

Regards, Chris 

Lovely hash! :wub:

Cincinnetina meeki, Glyptorthis insculpta, some of the smaller ones may even be Pionedema and I agree with Plaesiomys subquadrata, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recker
3 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I love prepping with pins as well.:)

It's amazing the results one can achieve with a little patience. 

Plus 1 for Cincinnetina meeki. 

 

Thanks Tidgy's Dad, glad to know you peck away with a pin as well LOL.  I did order a pin vise as someone on the forum recommended, should get here tomorrow! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
7 minutes ago, Recker said:

Thanks Tidgy's Dad, glad to know you peck away with a pin as well LOL.  I did order a pin vise as someone on the forum recommended, should get here tomorrow! 

Yes, I do use a pin vice as well. Still pins, but you'll find it an extremely useful addition to your prepping toolkit. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herb

It is really hard to ID the smaller Cincinnatian brachiopods with the inside of the shells showing the muscle scars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peat Burns
3 hours ago, Herb said:

It is really hard to ID the smaller Cincinnatian brachiopods with the inside of the shells showing the muscle scars.

+1 for the value of internal features and interarea for ID! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye
On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:49 AM, Peat Burns said:

Dalmanella meeki is now Cincinnetina meeki (which is what I think the OP has).

 

I understood that it is now called Resserella meeki. Also was called Orthis meeki.  No wonder I have such trouble IDing brachiopods!! I know the professionals change names frequently but the question is WHY!!!!!!! Did this brachiopod need to move to a different genus, or did all Dalmanella species just change their genus name? Its almost as frustrating as demoting Pluto from planethood!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peat Burns
29 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

 

I understood that it is now called Resserella meeki. Also was called Orthis meeki.  No wonder I have such trouble IDing brachiopods!! I know the professionals change names frequently but the question is WHY!!!!!!! Did this brachiopod need to move to a different genus, or did all Dalmanella species just change their genus name? Its almost as frustrating as demoting Pluto from planethood!!!!!!!

Fossilworks has it as Cincinnetina meeki and has Resserella as a former name.  Where did you see that it is now Resserella?

 

The updated naming is very annoying, I know.  I've devoted so much 'brain space' to names that are no longer in use.  It is usually based on progress in our understanding of evolutionary phylogeny (i.e. relative relatedness).  Necessary and indicative of new investigation and understanding, but admittedly "annoying" with regard to updating names in our brains :).  The older one gets, the worse it is.  A lot of the names I learned in the 80s aren't recognized anymore.  Unless one specializes in a particular group, it's hard to keep up!

 

The genus Dalmanella is still a valid genus.  Cincinnetina was erected because it was different enough to warrant being classified as a separate genus within the same family Dalmanellidae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

@Peat Burns Thanks!! Just venting a  little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye
17 hours ago, erose said:

Index Fossils of North America

 

Looked at the pdf and it is very helpful to beginners like me. Never knew it existed. Just skimming it, I have seen a possible ID on something that wasn't worth posting but had my curiosity up. Will have to check it out! Thanks @erose. Is there any updated versions from the 1944 edition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erose
16 hours ago, minnbuckeye said:

 

Looked at the pdf and it is very helpful to beginners like me. Never knew it existed. Just skimming it, I have seen a possible ID on something that wasn't worth posting but had my curiosity up. Will have to check it out! Thanks @erose. Is there any updated versions from the 1944 edition?

Never seen an update. And the 1944 version was an update of an earlier version. But for the most part it is still the go to reference for me as the species names are still all valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

Looks to be coming along just fine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peat Burns
On 1/25/2019 at 11:30 PM, Recker said:

Wanted to post an update.  

50687285_1116691541847250_2158057080093671424_n.jpg

 

Siskel and Ebert: :dinothumb::dinothumb:

 

Nice job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danzimmerman

Hello,

I am a bit of an Cincinnatian brachiopod nerd and I believe the brachs are a more unusual species called Heterothina. I hope this helps.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shamalama
11 hours ago, danzimmerman said:

Hello,

I am a bit of an Cincinnatian brachiopod nerd and I believe the brachs are a more unusual species called Heterothina. I hope this helps.

Dan

I'd be interested to know about how you came to that conclusion. I'm always trying to learn more about the fossils from the Cincinnattian. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danzimmerman

I have been collecting Cincinnatian fossils for over 35 years and specialized in brachiopods. I have spent time in museum collections and with old timers to learn the different species. This particular species was shown to me by Steve Felton a now deceased fossil legend in Ohio. I have some of these and they just have a different plication setup than other close species. Below is a specimen from my collection,

5e2f1c8f0b35a_Heterorthinamacfarlani(2).jpg.39a5e0d74cd4baccd0452c47522e343d.jpgs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Righteous

I like that plate just the way it is 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shamalama
On 1/27/2020 at 12:23 PM, danzimmerman said:

I have been collecting Cincinnatian fossils for over 35 years and specialized in brachiopods. I have spent time in museum collections and with old timers to learn the different species. This particular species was shown to me by Steve Felton a now deceased fossil legend in Ohio. I have some of these and they just have a different plication setup than other close species. Below is a specimen from my collection,

5e2f1c8f0b35a_Heterorthinamacfarlani(2).jpg.39a5e0d74cd4baccd0452c47522e343d.jpgs.

Interesting. Do you have any papers that describe the species? I'd like to examine any specimens I have to try and do some sorting. If it's down to plication arrangements I'm sure there would be an illustration showing the differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shamalama

I found a paper that changed the Cincinnatian 'Dalmanella' to Cincinnetina: J. Jin. 2012. Cincinnetina, a new Late Ordovician dalmanellid brachiopod from the Cincinnati type area, USA: implications for the evolution and palaeogeography of the epicontinental fauna of Laurentia. Palaeontology 55(1):205-228

 

Def. need to read this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danzimmerman

I do not know of any papers, I just learned how to spot them from Steve.

Sorry.

you can contact me at dzcdc at yahoo.com

Edited by danzimmerman
safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

It isn't a good idea to write your clicable email on a forum. It will be retrieved quickly by a bunch of robots and you will be invaded with spams. You have to write it like this dzcdc @ yahoo.com or dzcdc-at-yahoo.com

 

Coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danzimmerman

Another clue is the byfrication on the plications. If you loo closely at the original specimen in question, it has them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danzimmerman

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×