Pennsylvanian Fossils from the Glenshaw Formation

[cngodles]

CG-0152, the Fossil Taproot

Pine Creek limestone

 

Update.

 

This root is likely a root of either a cordaitalean or a conifer. The cordaitaleans preferred wet areas, so it is much more likely the identification. Conifers preferred well drained soils and were rare to preserve, as sediments aren't as likely to be lain in drier areas in comparison. For proper identification, I should attempt a thin section, which I do not have the resources to do currently.

 

I've added further research and photos at the link above. I hope to at least polish the current exposed end to better understand the cross-section.

 

This really fueled my desire to understand fossil tree types from the Carboniferous period in general, and I've been doing research. I hope to write an article online soon to help others searching for information about the interesting trees from this period of time.

 

CG-0153, Petrified Wood

Pine Creek limestone

 

This specimen was recovered in the talus directly below CG-0152. It's a piece of petrified wood, and has a break in it, likely from it's original vertical position, where horizontal stress fractures in the matrix split it. It is certainly a clue to the identification of the taproot, but is only circumstantial evidence. Perhaps it's a branch from the plant that owned the root, or even a relative from 10,000 years after it was buried? I'll never know.

 

 

 

CG-0154, Petalodus ohioensis

Pine Creek limestone

 

My second recovery from the Pine Creek limestone. It has very little preserved surface enamel. Only from collecting so many of these was I able to recognize this as a tooth remain. I brought several boulders home and split and worked on them for quite some time, recovering all sorts of interesting specimens. This was part of that effort.

 

 

 

 

CG-0155, Strobeus brevis

Pine Creek limestone

 

Teeny-tiny gastropods (snails). I feel like the smaller these are, the better their preservation. The aperture here is well preserved. The spire appears to be a preservation of four or even five complete whorls. Each black line on the background scale is 1mm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cngodles]

 

Trilobite

Brush Creek Limestone

 

I broke open soft iron-mud concretions at the top of the limestone and inside one I found two trilobites. One I thought was my first ever rolled trilobite, however it was preserved attached to a gastropod shell that was super convincing. The one photographed was a secondary one I've been working it. Everything is super fragile, I could crush this to dust simply by pressing on it with a finger. Nice detail, but super tiny, I think it was less than 4mm wide.

 

##########################

 

 

 

CG-0156, Metacoceras sp.

Brush Creek limestone

 

Yet another Metacoceras example. I spent a good amount of time prepping this one, and was able to clean out the umbilical area with an air-scribe without damaging the shell. You can see the growth lines well. Also, there is a brachiopod pretty much perfectly embedded in the umbilical area.

 

More reading about this specimen here -> Metacoceras with Brachiopod

[cngodles]

Back to the microscopic world today. The trilobite from the previous post in a new view, a fish spine, and something I'm not yet sure about. I'll likely post it in fossil ID. These are all focus-stacked photos, taken through a microscope lens while adjusting the focus on the phone or manually with the microscope. I did not provide scale for anything except the trilobite, but each is quite small.

 

 

Trilobite

Brush Creek Limestone

 

After some more digging, I finally broke this free. At the top of the specimen in the photo, you'll notice some thorax preservation, something that has been rare for me to find. They are already very tiny, and I feel that that portion is extra small and fragile. The scale above is in mm. It's very difficult to scrape at this, so I don't believe I'll be able to remove any more of the matrix that may be covering it at the center.

 

 

Currently Unknown

Brush Creek Limestone

 

I haven't figured this one out yet, but hopefully a trip over to fossil ID will help. The intricate preservation is very enjoyable to view under the microscope.

 

 

 

Fish Spine

Brush Creek Limestone

 

My 2nd cataloged specimen (CG-0002) ever was a bivalve next to a fish spine. I thought it was plant material, however people in this thread helped me figure it out. This is actually the first one of these I've seen in quite some time, so I figured it was worth photographing. This is more dimensional and clear than my first find.

[jdp]

Very nice trilobite. Pennsylvanian trilobites are super-rare, so that one (which I would assume is Ameura) is a particularly nice find.

 

Object #2 might be a graptolite.

 

Object 3 looks like an echinoid spine to me. I don't think that one is from a fish.

[cngodles]

1 hour ago, jdp said:

Very nice trilobite. Pennsylvanian trilobites are super-rare, so that one (which I would assume is Ameura) is a particularly nice find.

 

Object #2 might be a graptolite.

 

Object 3 looks like an echinoid spine to me. I don't think that one is from a fish.

 

For No. 1, there was actually two immediately visible in the soft iron concretion. Funny, the first one was preserved on top of a Bellerophon type shell, and I thought I found my first rolled trilobite. Once I spent over an hour digging it out, I found out it was mostly a gastropod. Lucky for me, this other was was an inch away.

 

For No. 2, seems that Graptolite types died out in the Mississippian. Wiki says 320MYA, these rocks are 305-304MYA

https://isgs.illinois.edu/outreach/geology-resources/graptolites

 

I did get an ID here shorty after:

 

For No. 3, that could be likely. My original idea about it being a fish spine came from this reply:

Tetrapods? I would love to find one of those.

[jdp]

Yeah I always forget when graptolites went extinct. Bryozoan then would be a fair guess there.

[cngodles]

CG-0159, Solenochilus with body chamber detail

Brush Creek Limestone

 

This interesting find comes from the altered limestone. This limestone is lighter and absorbs water easily. It likely is no longer technically limestone (But once was). I've been spending more time removing material from this type of stone. The finds are noticeably lighter, more fragile, and are less likely to have calcite. But they can preserve higher detailed surfaces and can be easier to remove matrix from. This comes with a trade-off, as damaging the subject is more likely as well.

 

This lip on the body chamber is usually destroyed, pre-burial. They are flared out and are exposed, probably more prone to physical roughing from the environment.

 

This specimen is split in half down the venter, approximately. This split may be where it rested on the ground during burial.

 

 

 

Examples of other specimens where this is clearly missing:

 

 

Also here, shown in red, where this lip would have attached.

 

 

Full write-up on the find and a description of this Solenochilus with body chamber preservation.

Edited April 30, 2021 by cngodles

[cngodles]

I have been digging in the mud and punky limestone this past week. It has yielded some interesting specimens, including the Solenochilus from the previous post. This is further documentation of my finds. Presenting three more specimens.

 

######################################

 

CG-0160, Mooreoceras sp. (or maybe Pseudorthoceras, the debate continues)

Brush Creek Limestone

 

This is my most complete find of a straight shelled cephalopod from this type of matrix. Each of the camerae is able to be separated, providing detail of each section. Very clear septal openings are visible. I may complete the separation of each, or try to keep it more or less together. The debate of large samples of these being Mooreoceras vs Pseudorthoceras has been around for a while. It may be that specimens named Mooreoceras may just be adult versions of the other. Some researchers go as far as using camerae deposits for specific identification.

 

 

 

######################################

 

CG-0161, Metacoceras sp.

Brush Creek Limestone

 

Continuing down the unique find path, this specimen has two large separated camerae. I've only recovered one with a single small separated camera, so this was a pleasant recovery. There is very excellent detail on each, and very prominent septal openings visible. This is the opposite of living cephalopods, where these camera steinkerns would be the gas-filled space of a living creature.

 

 

######################################

 

CG-0162, Eomarginifera longispinus

Brush Creek Limestone

 

This is my second E. longispinus with this sort of detail. I found the first one at least 1,000 feet away from this one, so it's nice to find similar specimens with some distance between them.

 

 

 

[cngodles]

Today a couple trilobite tails today. These are either Ameura missouriensus or Ditomopyge scitula, but I'm not sure myself. They look similar to be when viewed on plates. Each grid square is 5 mm X 5 mm. Photography is a bit poor, iPhone photo using existing light.

 

CG-0174, Family Phillipsiidae
https://fossil.15656.com/catalog/specimen/CG-0174

 

These can be found in the hard limestone, but often are just very small pieces. And not so detailed. This is a steinkern.

 

 

CG-0175, Family Phillipsiidae

https://fossil.15656.com/catalog/specimen/CG-0175

 

This one is slightly longer in presentation. It is a mold. The axial lobe is prominent.

 

 

More on local trilobite finds: https://fossil.15656.com/research-pages/late-pennsylanian-trilobites/

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by cngodles

[cngodles]

CG-0191, Petalodus ohioensis

This one comes from the Pine Creek limestone, the second one from this horizon. The first tooth crown was black in color, this was the silver gray I've come to expect. One corner is missing. While finishing the prep, two additional corner chips fell off, needing reattached using paraloid. The crown apex is well defined and there is a partial root.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by cngodles

[cngodles]

This is an update to an older post. This specimen, CG-0057 has now been identified as belonging to the gastropod genus Naticopsis.

 

Dr. Thomas E. Yancey examined the specimen and helped guide me to this identification.

 

The genus is another one that is very rare to find locally, with none reported from the Brush Creek limestone or even the Glenshaw Formation of Western Pennsylvania. There are reports from nearby Eastern Ohio from the Glenshaw, and reports in Pennsylvania from the Allegheny, the next oldest formation. Many examples are found just as a steinkern. There are a few subgenus available, and Naticopsis (Jerida) is highly likely as a more exact identification.

 

The ornament is subsutural, prosocline, and collabral. The spire is short.

 

Subsutural is ornament below the sutures. This does not extend past the widest part of the whorl.

Prosocline is one of 5 possible curvatures for ornamentation.

Collabral is a rising and lowering ornamentation that appears as a wave along the growth mantle edge due to fluctuation in the process for adding new shell.

 

So all of that aside, it looks like this:

 

 

Here is a juvenile specimen from the bottom of the underlying formation.

 

 

While the detailed view of the specimen provides many details, the specimen as a whole only shows the broken spire and the subsutural ornament of a single whorl. The rest of the shell is hidden in difficult matrix, and would be very difficult to remove without breaking the shell. What I got to see was due to the luck of the break, a rock split that just happened to reveal a very good portion of the shell.

 

 

 

 

Original post, declaring this specimen as a possible Mourlonia. This is now in incorrect possibility.

 

I am in the process of writing a research page for the genus as a whole. It has not been reviewed yet: https://fossil.15656.com/research-pages/naticopsis/

Edited June 14, 2021 by cngodles

[cngodles]

Crinoids from Western Pennsylvania, and why can't we identify them?

 

In reviewing a paper about Pittsburgh fossil collecting, I stumbled upon an article about a new species of crinoid that was published in 1967. Two things about this caught my attention. One, someone wrote about crinoids locally. And two, the author (J.J. Burke) shared the same frustration. There simply had been no papers written concerning crinoid species from the Brush Creek or surrounding rock. There apparently hasn't been a paper written since the authors.

 

From this newfound curiosity, I set out to write a post about this situation:

https://fossil.15656.com/2021/07/03/endelocrinus-murrysvillensis-a-species-of-crinoid-described-from-the-brush-creek-limestone-published-in-1967/

 

To date, the best reference for identifying Pennsylvanian crinoids has been this classic Fossil Forum Post:

To keep with this being about my collection, here is the only confirmed crinoid calyx piece I have recovered to date:

 

CG-0108, Crinoid Calyx Plate

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by cngodles

[cngodles]

I have spent the last couple of weeks writing about Shansiella carbonaria. As part of the research I produced a number of plates of specimens. This is the second time I've set off to create plates, having made one for Wilkingia a month ago. Hopefully the specimens are pleasing, and they all come from the Glenshaw Formation.

 

Research Article Here:

https://fossil.15656.com/research-pages/shansiella-carbonaria/ (Accepting any feedback!)

 

[connorp]

@cngodles That's a really quality work product. How did you make it?

[Wrangellian]

The specimens are certainly pleasing and your plate looks great! 

[cngodles]

On 9/13/2021 at 10:52 PM, connorp said:

How did you make it?

A large series of photos on white at the same zoom level. Used modeling clay for the first time to set them correctly. Plate 1 was created after receiving feedback on Plates 2-4. While it’s nice to include a ton of photos, it dilutes the focus. Since I’m publishing online, I kept the photos but would only use Plate 1 if one day I attempt to publish this somewhere more official. I messed up the adaperture view, I should have made sure they were all turned the same way.

 

Photos were all processed to blow out the whites, so it just took a bit of time in Photoshop to arrange them correctly. Journals inspired the labeling.

 

On 9/13/2021 at 10:59 PM, Wrangellian said:

The specimens are certainly pleasing and your plate looks great!

Thank you! 

 

[cngodles]

Two specimen lots of Glenshaw formation brachiopods. And an article about a species controversy within the Glenshaw formation.

 

CG-0235 - Linoproductus sp.

This is a great example of weathering effecting fossils. Contract with water likely changed the composition of the top right two thirds or more of this brachiopod.

 

CG-0229 - Antiquatonia portlockiana

These two were found right next to each other, so they are cataloged as a lot of two.

 

The Curious Case of the Nomen Dubium Turbo Insectus

In this article, I write about a species that likely should have been synomized with another. However, the amount of time that has passed may likely leave this as forever unresolved.

 

 

https://fossil.15656.com/2021/09/22/the-curious-case-of-the-nomen-dubium-turbo-insectus/

 

Another plate, historical specimens of Shansiella carbonaria.

 

[cngodles]

Cordaites

 

Today's Glenshaw Formation fossil genus is Cordaites. These are common, but can be difficult to find in one piece like many macro fossils. The two specimens below are good examples. The first, CG-0247 was found on a matrix that held together well. The second specimen, currently uncatalogued, was found in fissile shale and was only recoverable in pieces. They both represent recent large recoveries. Most recoveries I've made before these were very small in comparison.

 

CG-0247 - Cardaites sp.

Very large specimen. The matrix was cut with a grinder to lessen the weight and store. The junction at the bottom seems to be where the original plan split off for roots, I believe similar to mangrove trees today.

 

No ID - Cardaites sp.

Various pieces collected from one particular piece. These were originally face down on a single ledge that comprised of a single specimen. The opposite portion is still at the site, but there is a photograph in the article at the bottom of this post. Note the preserved pieces of "bark" that looks to be preserved as carbon.

 

 

More reading:

https://fossil.15656.com/2021/10/03/cordaites-from-two-horizons-in-the-glenshaw-formation/

[cngodles]

A few brachiopods, Composita.

All cataloged specimens of Composita here.

 

CG-0253

 

CG-0254

 

CG-0257

 

CG-0258

 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

No you're talking! 

[cngodles]

Some older brachiopods, and a new brachiopod.

 

CG-0035 - Antiquatonia portlockiana

Scale bar = 1 cm.

 

No ID yet - Neospirifer sp.

Scale bar = 1 cm.

 

CG-0162 - Eomarginifera longispinus

Scale bar = 5 mm.

 

 

CG-0105 - Pulchratia

Scale bar = 5 mm.

 

 

 

[connorp]

Awesome photography!

[Tidgy's Dad]

Wow! 

[Denis Arcand]

The pictures are amazing, you really capture all the find details

Not to mention the brachiopod, they are spectacular

 

Well done @cngodles 

[cngodles]

Some more variety. Gastropod, Trilobite, Cephalopod, and a Petalodus.

 

CG-0431 - Meekospira sp.

Scale bar = 5 mm.

 

 

CG-0425 - Ameura missouriensis

Scale bar = 1 cm.

 

 

CG-0420 - Metacoceras sp.

Scale bar = 1 cm.

 

 

CG-0055 - Petalodus ohioensis

Scale bar = 1 cm.