Jump to content

Recommended Posts

daves64

Maybe they were gender neutral & became one sex or the other as needed. Or even completely neutral & able to reproduce without mating. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KimTexan

Not boring at all. Thought provoking.

 

I have a cidarid I found years ago that to my knowledge is a one of a kind and has not been ID’d. At the time no cidarids had been described in the formation it was found in. It had something protruding from the top which appeared to be coming from within, but it was amorphous so in prep I removed it. This makes me wonder if it could have been remnants of a female attribute.

@erose and @Bill Thompson may find this of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

Hi,

 

The difference between male marsupial sea urchins and female is only at the level of the hollow apical which was of use to females to keep and to protect their babies.

Kim, if you removed something which exceeded, it is possible that it was a part of Aristote's lantern (jaw) on the lower face, doubtless 5 teeth.
 
Coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KimTexan
8 minutes ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

The difference between male marsupial sea urchins and female is only at the level of the hollow apical which was of use to females to keep and to protect their babies.

Kim, if you removed something which exceeded, it is possible that it was a part of Aristote's lantern (jaw) on the lower face, doubtless 5 teeth.
 
Coco

It honestly looked like rock. I am familiar with the jaw. It didn’t look like that. Sometimes in prep you have to make the choice to keep or not keep matrix or other stuff for esthetic purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

Very interesting. 

I will be following this thread with, er, interest.

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daves64
4 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Very interesting. 

I will be following this thread with, er, interest.

:popcorn:

The things some people do for thrills... err .. pleasure..  uummm.. enjoyment... :doh!: out of boredom ..  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
1 minute ago, daves64 said:

The things some people do for thrills... err .. pleasure..  uummm.. enjoyment... :doh!: out of boredom ..  :D

My life is empty.

I am a very sad individual. 

But this is interesting.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quer
6 hours ago, daves64 said:

Maybe they were gender neutral & became one sex or the other as needed. Or even completely neutral & able to reproduce without mating. :shrug:

As far as I know cidaroids are dioecious, having separate male and female sexes from the start, although no distinguishing features are visible externally in most cases.

 

5 hours ago, Coco said:

The difference between male marsupial sea urchins and female is only at the level of the hollow apical which was of use to females to keep and to protect their babies.

So, the belonging of a male specimen to the genus Almucidaris should be established from other morphologic characteristics. It seems it is very difficult.

 

6 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I have a cidarid I found years ago that to my knowledge is a one of a kind and has not been ID’d. At the time no cidarids had been described in the formation it was found in. It had something protruding from the top which appeared to be coming from within, but it was amorphous so in prep I removed it. This makes me wonder if it could have been remnants of a female attribute

Blake & Zinsmeister consider that "The incidence of brooding in invertebrates, including echinoderms, increases with latitude and apparent stress; stressful conditions might have contributed tot the evolution of A. durhami". Discarding latitude (latitude of Antarctica and Pyrenees hardly can be more different), they were plenty of stressful conditions in the Maastrichtian.

 

So, if more cidaroid specimens having developed -plate marsupia were found in distant places, it could be explained as a recurring -but not often successful- evolutionary response to increase reproduction rate in difficult times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KimTexan
On 2/1/2019 at 8:29 AM, erose said:

There are quite a number of yet to be properly described species of ancient marine life in various collections, both amateur and museum.  If possible you should consider donating it to a museum or university so that it can be studied and described by professionals.  

 

Bill Thompson called me one day expressing interest in it. He said he’d be up in my area and he’d like to see it, but I never heard back from him. 

I find it very hard to part with the most beautiful echinoid I have ever found. They’re so rare. I doubt I’ll ever find another cidarid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnJ

Well said, Don.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Amateur Paleontologist

This is a rather interesting thread :) I like the "detective" work you're doing in trying to ID your specimen!

-Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quer
4 hours ago, Coco said:

Here is the pic, on the left one you can see bigger gonopores (female) than on the right one (male).

 

Thank you very much. This is a form of sexual dimorphism in cidaroids I did not know.

2 hours ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said:

This is a rather interesting thread :) I like the "detective" work you're doing in trying to ID your specimen!

-Christian

 

Thanks for your interest, Chistian.

 

I would add something. This specimen is the only one I've found almost complete (test and plates, but no spines attached or around), but spare pieces and spines are not so rare.

 

In TED is said that "Primary spines (are) unkown", but those are spines found around pieces of likely Almucidaris falgarsensis:

 

This one shows a well-preserved base and neck:

 

DSC_0089.thumb.JPG.36aa6cfc3527ea762f4ddcfa6ec7b934.JPG

 

Unfortunately, silicification has changed its ornamentation in a sort of Beekite rings  (@abyssunder will love this):

DSC_0091.JPG.8748a2660ce83d7e5363d5f90d031a78.JPG

 

For ornamentation better see those ones:

 

DSC_0028_ampl.JPG.f29ea5114591ac5dac6e2bf4079ee7f5.JPG

 

DSC_0420.JPG.b3bb9fa7811d178dba303cadba09c115.JPG

 

Finally, this one remains very close to the tubercle:

DSC_0021.JPG.1571aa7425a6ba39b4a38d7f739e2b21.JPG

 

Summarizing: primary spines seem to be cylindrical rather than fusiform, ornamented with thorns. Lenght can't be stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KimTexan
4 hours ago, sixgill pete said:

The rarest fossil i have ever found. A one of a kind (for N.C.) Oligocene Eosqualodon tooth is now sitting in a display at the Mace Brown Museum in Charleston. It was the right thing to do for science to learn more about the evolution of squalodontids. 

But the decision is yours. My only advice would be that if you do donate this, make sure it goes to someone who will write it up scientifically with peer review and publication. Not just named and put in a book.

I have no problem letting someone borrow it for study. But honestly many of the holotypes end up in storage somewhere where nobody sees or enjoys them for decades on end. 

The urchin has a lot of sentimental value to me. I found it near where I found my first ammonites and gastropods and regular urchins and other fossils in college. I have many happy memories of that place. It is a symbol and memento of a different bygone era of my life. I don’t have that first ammonite, but I have the urchin.

If I found it in some random place I think it would have very different value to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete

@KimTexan no worries. We all do indeed have special fossils. I have parted ways with many megs. But i still have my first. I'm not sure there is anyone who would write up a new species, have it peer reviewed and then published without it going into a museums collection. And yes many do sit in drawers. But, there are researchers out there who periodically study them for further undetstanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abyssunder
1 hour ago, Quer said:

Unfortunately, silicification has changed its ornamentation in a sort of Beekite rings  (@abyssunder will love this):

Wow, beautiful beekite ring formation! :)

Thank you for showing this. :dinothumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abyssunder

Guys, gals, do you want to provoke a heart attack to me with those mamelons? :oyh:
(Hope my wife doesn't see this)  :fingerscrossed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

:hearty-laugh:

 

Coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plax
23 hours ago, Coco said:

Here is the pic, on the left one you can see bigger gonopores (female) than on the right one (male).

 

 

Coco

thanks for the education Coco!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
21 hours ago, KimTexan said:

I have no problem letting someone borrow it for study. But honestly many of the holotypes end up in storage somewhere where nobody sees or enjoys them for decades on end. 

The urchin has a lot of sentimental value to me. I found it near where I found my first ammonites and gastropods and regular urchins and other fossils in college. I have many happy memories of that place. It is a symbol and memento of a different bygone era of my life. I don’t have that first ammonite, but I have the urchin.

If I found it in some random place I think it would have very different value to me.

Can we see a photo of it, or did I miss one you already posted?

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.

×