Jump to content
hong

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

Recommended Posts

hong

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digit

Welcome to the forum!

 

Possibly @Monica @Malcolmt or @Kane might have an opinion as it is from their area.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevonianDigger

Ceraurus cephalon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolmt

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane

+1 for Ceraurus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

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

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha

Yes, but not synonymous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Kmiecik

. . . . . 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevonianDigger

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hong
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hong

Thank you very much, hunters, let me know a lot, you are too professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
middevonian
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Kmiecik
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
middevonian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
middevonian
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.

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.

×