Jump to content

Found a interesting fossil stone in Toronto area, can someone identify the ID please?


hong

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, I'm new to this forum and fossil hunt. I found a fossil in Toronto area near a road construction site.

It looks like some kind of insect.

May I ask if someone could identify the ID of this fossil for me please? Thank you very much!

storageemulated0tencentMicroMsg527123ccbaaa00ca1416620e0b67952eimage20d0a0d0aad48bb59e8f2299604bd74db3dc0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally wrong age for insect..so that is a definate no. Part of a trikobite cephalon most likely ceraurus bieng found near Toronto 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymondites spiniger on the left, Bathyurus extans on the left, from Ludveigsen's volume on Ontario trilobites.  I have a recollection that Raymondites has been synonymized with Bathyurus but I am not certain of that.

 

Features that are (to me) inconsistent with Ceraurus are: glabellar furrows absent (these extend far enough into the glabella in Ceraurus that they should be visible); indication of flat brim in front of glabella; possible stout occipital spine.

 

Don

Raymondites Bathyurus.jpg

  • I found this Informative 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymondites was classified as a subgenus of Bathyurus:

 

The Upper Ordovician (Sandbian–Katian) bathyurid trilobite Raymondites Sinclair is revised using new collections from Missouri and Ontario, and archival material from Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, and Ontario. Phylogenetic analysis supports monophyly of Raymondites, but recognition of this genus renders Bathyurus Billings paraphyletic. We treat Raymondites as a subgenus of Bathyurus and label the paraphylum of species traditionally assigned to the latter as Bathyurus sensu lato. Bathyurus (Raymondites) is composed of five previously named species, B. (R.) spiniger (Hall), B. (R.) longispinus (Walcott), B. (R.) ingalli (Raymond), B. (R.) bandifer Sinclair, and B. (R.) trispinosus (Wilson), and two new species, B. (R.) clochensis, and B. (R.) missouriensis; an eighth species is placed in open nomenclature. All species share tuberculate sculpture on the glabella, a relatively short palpebral lobe whose length is less than half of preoccipital glabellar length, and a pygidial outline that is well rounded posteriorly. Aside from the most basal species, B. (R.) longispinus, they also possess occipital spines and, where the pygidium is known, axial pygidial spines.
 
 

Swisher, R.E. Westrop, S.R., & Amati, L. 2015

The Upper Ordovician trilobite Raymondites Sinclair, 1944 in North America.
Journal of Paleontology, 89(1):110-134  PDF LINK
  • I found this Informative 6

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reference Scott.  So I was correct that Raymondites is not generically distinct from Bathyurus.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . . . and the other things are bivalves (shells), and a couple of other things that can't be identified without a bit of preparation done to the specimen. Get yourself a pin vise and carbon steel tipped needle (fairly cheap online) and a good magnifying glass of about 5x - 10x and very carefully start gently scratching away the gray matrix. You will find a fairly sweet trilobite in there, and a few other things you may not have expected; things that can't be identified until some of the overlying matrix is removed, like that semicircle to the right of the bivalve in the photo. You have the upper part of one similar to this:

 

cfa3fd40c000be350834669ebf4563b0.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ceraurus was just a guess, seemed plausible, but you've definitely got it nailed there. I wasn't sure if that point at the rear was a trick of the eye, but that's definitely a post-occipital spine, and that definitely looks to be a Bathyurus, spiniger seems like the winner! Another trilobite I was not at all familiar with prior to a TFF thread. Only ~30,000 more to commit to memory, lol!

Jay A. Wollin

Lead Fossil Educator - Penn Dixie Fossil Park and Nature Reserve

Hamburg, New York, USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

其他的东西是双壳类(贝壳),还有一些其他东西,如果没有对标本进行一些准备就无法识别。给你自己一个针脚和碳钢针尖(相当便宜的在线)和一个约5倍-10倍的良好放大镜,并非常小心地开始轻轻刮去灰色矩阵。你会在那里找到一个相当甜的三叶虫,还有一些你可能没想过的东西; 在删除某些叠加矩阵之前无法识别的事物,例如照片中双壳类右侧的半圆。你有一个类似的上半部分:

 

cfa3fd40c000be350834669ebf4563b0.jpg

Thank you very much, I tried to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DevonianDigger said:

 ...Bathyurus, spiniger seems like the winner!

 

 

It's confusing but the name Raymondites should still be applied.  The subgenus concept is useful to infer a relationship, but Raymondites is a distinct (sub)genus from Bathyurus.

  • I found this Informative 2

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DevonianDigger said:

Ceraurus was just a guess, seemed plausible, but you've definitely got it nailed there. I wasn't sure if that point at the rear was a trick of the eye, but that's definitely a post-occipital spine, and that definitely looks to be a Bathyurus, spiniger seems like the winner! Another trilobite I was not at all familiar with prior to a TFF thread. Only ~30,000 more to commit to memory, lol!

You'd have to poke around in the Ordovician quite a bit for Raymondites to come to mind, it is not particularly common.  Ceraurus is far more common and is the first thing to come to mind when one sees such a bumpy glabella.

 

The correct way to write the name would be Bathyurus (Raymondites) spiniger, where the subgenus is indicated in brackets.  I have seen people on the forum use brackets to indicate an old name for a genus when it has been replaced by something else, but this is an incorrect use of brackets.  For example, I have seen Vinlandostrophia (Platystrophia) ponderosa used to indicate Platystrophia is the old genus name, but this is an error as Platystrophia is not a subgenus of Vinlandostrophia, the two are separate genera.

 

I also must comment that it's probably a stretch to assign the fossil to a particular species.  Swisher et al (see the link provided by piranha in his earlier post) identify many specimens that were previously published as Bathyurus (Raymondites) spiniger, including the one shown in my earlier post, as Bathyurus (Raymondites) ingalli.  The two species are quite similar, and some researchers including Ludvigsen considered them to be the same, but Swisher et al point out enough differences for them to consider the species distinct.  I think the specimen in the first post would need to be uncovered more to decide which is the correct species assignment.  Personally, I would label it: Bathyurus (Raymondites) sp. or maybe Bathyurus (Raymondites) sp. cf Bathyurus (Raymondites) ingalli.

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

. . . . . and the other things are bivalves (shells), ...

The "other things" (shells) are brachiopods, not bivalves.

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

...I have seen people on the forum use brackets to indicate an old name for a genus when it has been replaced by something else, but this is an incorrect use of brackets.  For example, I have seen Vinlandostrophia (Platystrophia) ponderosa used to indicate Platystrophia is the old genus name, but this is an error as Platystrophia is not a subgenus of Vinlandostrophia, the two are separate genera.

 

 

Adding the 'equal' sign indicates synonymy: Vinlandostrophia (=Platystrophia) ponderosa

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

Adding the 'equal' sign indicates synonymy: Vinlandostrophia (=Platystrophia) ponderosa

Good to know.

 

However that could also become confusing in this particular example.  Platystrophia was revised and split, with the genotype and a couple of other Baltic species being retained in Platystrophia, and the New World species assigned to the new genus Vinlandostrophia.  So the two are not really synonymous, and the above could be read to imply that the Baltic species retained in Platystrophia are actually in Vinlandostrophia.  Isn't taxonomy fun??

 

However for less formal purposes, such as the Fossil Forum, using an "=" sign does remove quite a bit of confusion and is a useful suggestion.

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

For example, I have seen Vinlandostrophia (Platystrophia) ponderosa used to indicate Platystrophia is the old genus name, but this is an error as Platystrophia is not a subgenus of Vinlandostrophia, the two are separate genera.

If I'm remembering correctly it should be written Vinlandostrophia ponderosa (formerly in Platystrophia).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

The "other things" (shells) are brachiopods, not bivalves.

 

Don

Sorry, I'm still learning. Guess I'll have to do some reading so I can stop making this same error sometime soon.

 

EDIT: Ok, now I got it. A matter of mirror image symmetry between the two valves.

2nd EDIT: And the structure of internal organs.

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, middevonian said:

If I'm remembering correctly it should be written Vinlandostrophia ponderosa (formerly in Platystrophia).

 

 

Or it can be expressed with an equal sign.  A much more simplified process as demonstrated in Jell & Adrain 2003 (750+ examples).

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

Or it can be expressed with an equal sign.  A much more simplified process as demonstrated in Jell & Adrain 2003 (750+ examples).

I'm confused. The way I'm reading Don's example is that Vinlandostrophia and Platystrophia were not synonymized. Platystrophia ponderosa was moved to the genus Vinlandostrophia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, middevonian said:

I'm confused. The way I'm reading Don's example is that Vinlandostrophia and Platystrophia were not synonymized. Vinlandostrophia ponderosa was moved to the genus Platystrophia.

 

 

You reversed it: "Platystrophia" ponderosa is a synonym of Vinlandostrophia ponderosa.  As Don mentioned, Vinlandostrophia / Platystrophia is an exceptional circumstance. 

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

You reversed it: "Platystrophia" ponderosa is a synonym of Vinlandostrophia ponderosa.  As Don mentioned, Vinlandostrophia / Platystrophia is an exceptional circumstance. 

Edited... much obliged.

 

I don't agree that Platystrophia ponderosa is a synonym of Vinlandostrophia ponderosa. Platystrophia was revised and split and the genus Vinlandostrophia was erected.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...