Ok, what do you guys think of these?

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

I’ve got some ID requests that need to be solved. First (#1) an old friend that needs to be re-evaluated I think. I know this to be solidly mid to late Cambrian in age which leads me to believe its some kind of ichofossil perhaps Cruziana. What are your thoughts?

 

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

Next up (#2) is this most recent addition to my collection from the Manning Canyon Shale which is Late Mississippian/Early Pennsylvanian in age. It was found with numerous brachiopods on this trip.

 

 

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

(#2)

[ynot]

# 2 looks like remnants of a mineralised vein.

No idea on #1

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

The last one (#3) here is from the Mississippian Great Blue Limestone. 

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

[Archie]

Not sure about the first two but could the third be a brachiopod spine?

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

54 minutes ago, ynot said:

# 2 looks like remnants of a mineralised vein.

No idea on #1

I have one of the brachiopods that appears to be replaced with whatever that stuff is as well. I thought if a brachiopod could be replaced then something else could be too. I thought it would be best to check here before discounting it as just a mineral deposit. You can certainly see a few calcite or quartz veins running through it.

[ynot]

I think 3 could be a  scaphopod sp.

[Tidgy's Dad]

Could number three be the scaphopod Laevidentalium ? 

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

5 minutes ago, Archie said:

Not sure about the first two but could the third be a brachiopod spine?

That would be really cool if it was but there are that many spiny brachiopods in this formation at least that I’ve come across. I’m not ruling it out yet, though.

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

3 minutes ago, ynot said:

I think 3 could be a  scaphopod sp.

 

2 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Could number three be the scaphopod Laevidentalium ? 

That would be a first for me and two of them in the same rock at that.

[Tidgy's Dad]

Just now, UtahFossilHunter said:

 

That would be a first for me and two of them in the same rock at that.

Yeah, and I'd be jealous. 

I love scaphopods.

[Ludwigia]

I don't think that #1 is Cruziana. They tend to have a double row of prints and your's appears to only have one. I've no idea what it could be otherwise, but trace fossil is a possibility.

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

Like others, I'm pretty sure that the last one is a scaphopod  

-Christian

[fifbrindacier]

17 minutes ago, ynot said:

I think 3 could be a  scaphopod sp.

 

17 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Could number three be the scaphopod Laevidentalium ? 

 

12 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Yeah, and I'd be jealous. 

I love scaphopods.

Scaphopod was also my idea, and i too am jealous.

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

15 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Yeah, and I'd be jealous. 

I love scaphopods.

I can’t find anything in the literature about any being in that formation. I’ll have to take it to a local expert. That’d be even cooler if it were a new species.

10 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

I don't think that #1 is Cruziana. They tend to have a double row of prints and your's appears to only have one. I've no idea what it could be otherwise, but trace fossil is a possibility.

I can’t it either. Maybe it’s some kind of polychaete worm trace.

8 minutes ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said:

Like others, I'm pretty sure that the last one is a scaphopod  

-Christian

1 minute ago, fifbrindacier said:

 

 

Scaphopod was also my idea, and i too am jealous.

Sweet!

[abyssunder]

Maybe the first one has infilled and mineralized desiccation cracks of an ancient mudstone.

[connorp]

#1 might be some sort of algae. Reminiscent of some specimens I've found. However, the veins that are running nearly perpendicular to the specimen are strange, and appear to follow cracks in the rock. So infilling as the post above suggests seems more likely.

[KimTexan]

Scaphopod was my first thought. I know they exist in the Mississippian forward, but I’m not sure they are found in the Cambrian. Could they be denticles of some kind? Never mind it’s Cambrian.

Maybe something closer to ribeirioid rostroconch mollusk If mollusk. I think it’s not likely a mollusk if Cambrian though. I’m not sure if any cephalopods existed back then either.

 

Regarding trace fossils there are fossils Protichnites and Climactichnites trace fossils.

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 minute ago, KimTexan said:

Scaphopod was my first thought. I know they exist in the Mississippian forward, but I’m not sure they are found in the Cambrian. Could they be denticles of some kind? Never mind it’s Cambrian.

Maybe something closer to ribeirioid rostroconch mollusk If mollusk. I think it’s not likely a mollusk if Cambrian though. I’m not sure if any cephalopods existed back then either.

 

Regarding trace fossils there are fossils Protichnites and Climactichnites trace fossils.

Number 3 (the possible scaphopod) is Mississippian, Kim.

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

7 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

Maybe the first one has infilled and mineralized desiccation cracks of an ancient mudstone.

I thought about that but the structures do not go all the way through, it’s a very thin surficial feature. There’s one on the back as well that runs perpendicular to the one on the front side. I seem to have failed to post the picture of that one. 

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

5 minutes ago, KimTexan said:

Scaphopod was my first thought. I know they exist in the Mississippian forward, but I’m not sure they are found in the Cambrian. Could they be denticles of some kind? Never mind it’s Cambrian.

Maybe something closer to ribeirioid rostroconch mollusk If mollusk. I think it’s not likely a mollusk if Cambrian though. I’m not sure if any cephalopods existed back then either.

Only #1 is from the Cambrian. The other two are from the Mississippian.

6 minutes ago, KimTexan said:

Regarding trace fossils there are fossils Protichnites and Climactichnites trace fossils.

Thanks, I see the similarity in Protichnites tail drag but I’m not seeing any foot traces parallel with it.

[abyssunder]

9 minutes ago, UtahFossilHunter said:

I thought about that but the structures do not go all the way through, it’s a very thin surficial feature. There’s one on the back as well that runs perpendicular to the one on the front side. I seem to have failed to post the picture of that one. 

 

I'll remain in my theory.

 

B . Mudcracks from the top of the Cambrian Alum Shale Formation underlying the Lower Ordovician succession; VästraTunhem locality, pencil for scale.

 

picture from here