Randomguy1 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Hey guys! I was in one of my favorite Pennsylvanian spots in East Kansas finding the usual brachs and bryos when all of a sudden this popped out at me. Any ideas as to what it might be? I’ve never seen something like this in my area before. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 It might be helpful to see the interior better. End views ? Doesn't look like a trilobite to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Not seeing trilobite here. Looks more like either arthropod, or a fish mouth plate. I took the liberty of cropping and brightening the first photo. 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 looks like some kind of fish plate to me also 1 "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 I agree it's not a trilobite fragment. "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 @Xiphactinus @Ramo @KansasFossilHunter @Innocentx Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomguy1 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 I’ll take some pictures of the ends when I get home. Currently on break at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronzviking Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 My first impression was turtle shell scute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Looks like it has some very nice texture on the raised portions. Better detail of that may be diagnostic. Cool find. Good size too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomguy1 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 Yeah thanks! This is the first vetebrate fossil I have ever found in my area! It’s a pretty good size at about an inch! I was super shocked to find it today. Here’s a end shot. (Sorry my phone doesn’t take the greatest photos) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomguy1 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 And a closer up: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Awesome find! It does look like a tooth plate of some sort, never seen anything quite like it before though! Reminds me a bit of some tooth plates of the chondrichthyan genus Psammodus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Also wondering if it could be a species of Janassa, could we see a clearer image of the "underside"? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 I don’t know what it is, but it sure is cool looking! ????? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomguy1 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Xiphactinus said: I don’t know what it is, but it sure is cool looking! ????? Wowwwwwww, way to boil down my thoughts into the simplest sentence possible. Just kidding of course. That’s exactly how I thought! xD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomguy1 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 3 hours ago, Archie said: Also wondering if it could be a species of Janassa, could we see a clearer image of the "underside"? Thank you guys for the help. I’m a total newbie with fossils! This is about the best I can with this camera: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 I'm in the chondrichthyan tooth camp. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 23 hours ago, Bronzviking said: My first impression was turtle shell scute. No turtles around yet, in the Pennsylvanian period. 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 @Carl may have an idea, or he may be able to run it past Dr. Maisey who is a leading authority on Paleozoic fish. Don 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 As its missing both ends its harder to tell if there was a root at one end and a crown at the other but those ridges really remind me of the dentine folds on the lingual surface of some petalodonts such as Janassa. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 On 2/14/2019 at 3:42 PM, Randomguy1 said: I was in one of my favorite Pennsylvanian spots in East Kansas finding the usual brachs and 7 hours ago, Archie said: As its missing both ends its harder to tell if there was a root at one end and a crown at the other but those ridges really remind me of the dentine folds on the lingual surface of some petalodonts such as Janassa. Brachoipods have never been found in fresh water. I think we are looking at the root and crown. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 On 2/15/2019 at 5:47 PM, FossilDAWG said: @Carl may have an idea, or he may be able to run it past Dr. Maisey who is a leading authority on Paleozoic fish. Don You read my mind, Don. I reached out to him last week and here's what I got: The Janassa suggestion in the Forum is actually pretty good. A good candidate for the fossil is Fissodus St John and Worthen 1875. Fissodus is currently classified as a janassid and it occurs in the Mississippian of N America. That would make this a petalodontid tooth. That’s a good possibility. Just the bladed bit at the cutting end would be missing. The ‘trilobite’ mention in the forum is interesting, because Janassa teeth were first referred to the ancient catch-all genus Trilobites, by Shlotheim (1820)! Harpagofuturor (a chondrenchelyid) is another possibility, but less likely. See Lund (1982). Otherwise, the closest things to this I can find are some cochliodont tooth plates. It isn’t exactly like anything in the pictures I have, but the ones it’s least dissimilar from are: Poecilodus, especially P rugosus (known from Illinois) Chitonodus (known from Iowa) Solenodus (Upper Carb of Russia) Another taxon worth chasing is Cymatodus. I don’t have pics but it supposedly has ridges with “prominent waves”. There are two versions; one was described by Newberry and Worthen (1870) from Illinois, the other (I think from Russia) was described by Trautschold (1879) but is different. Interestingly (since Janassa is mentioned in the Forum), Newb and Worth suggested that some smaller specimens they had might be referable to Janassa rather than Cymatodus. Having said that, the above mentioned ‘cochliodonts’ are all incertae sedis, so at the end of the day we are still none the wiser. I’m gonna stick with Fissodus. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 And here's a cast Janassa from our collections. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomguy1 Posted February 19, 2019 Author Share Posted February 19, 2019 36 minutes ago, Carl said: You read my mind, Don. I reached out to him last week and here's what I got: The Janassa suggestion in the Forum is actually pretty good. A good candidate for the fossil is Fissodus St John and Worthen 1875. Fissodus is currently classified as a janassid and it occurs in the Mississippian of N America. That would make this a petalodontid tooth. That’s a good possibility. Just the bladed bit at the cutting end would be missing. The ‘trilobite’ mention in the forum is interesting, because Janassa teeth were first referred to the ancient catch-all genus Trilobites, by Shlotheim (1820)! Harpagofuturor (a chondrenchelyid) is another possibility, but less likely. See Lund (1982). Otherwise, the closest things to this I can find are some cochliodont tooth plates. It isn’t exactly like anything in the pictures I have, but the ones it’s least dissimilar from are: Poecilodus, especially P rugosus (known from Illinois) Chitonodus (known from Iowa) Solenodus (Upper Carb of Russia) Another taxon worth chasing is Cymatodus. I don’t have pics but it supposedly has ridges with “prominent waves”. There are two versions; one was described by Newberry and Worthen (1870) from Illinois, the other (I think from Russia) was described by Trautschold (1879) but is different. Interestingly (since Janassa is mentioned in the Forum), Newb and Worth suggested that some smaller specimens they had might be referable to Janassa rather than Cymatodus. Having said that, the above mentioned ‘cochliodonts’ are all incertae sedis, so at the end of the day we are still none the wiser. I’m gonna stick with Fissodus. This is hugely helpful! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captcrunch227 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Fissodus makes sense to me, I'd second that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now