Fish-remains from the Carboniferous of the Piesberg quarry, Germany

[paleoflor]

L.S.,

 

Since animal fossils are definitely not my strongsuit, I would like to call upon the incredible collective knowledge here at TFF and ask your help with the identification of the fish remains shown below. This specimen comes from the Westphalian D (Pennsylvanian, Carboniferous) of the Piesberg quarry near Wallenhorst, Germany. The shape of the scales reminds me of images of rhizodont (?) fish scales, but this could very well be a superficial resemblance only... Penny for your thoughts?

 

Kind regards,

 

Tim

 

  

[paleoflor]

Additional images. Apologies for the poor quality, only way I could attempt to capture more detail was using my phone camera on my microscope. Also note the little jaw fragments (at least two) that are scattered between the scales. Beautiful, but I wish I new more about them...

 

[paleoflor]

Afterthought: Note the above photographs randomly feature structures on the part and counterpart of the specimen (shown below).

 

 

[caldigger]

Shall we try @D.N.FossilmanLithuania, he seems rather versed with ancient fish parts. Maybe the scales might look familiar.

[FossilDAWG]

@jdp does research on fish of this age, I think.

 

Don

[Fossildude19]

Can't hurt to ask @oilshale.

[jdp]

I'm thinking coelacanth. This is probably a coprolite or bromalite, though.

[Pemphix]

9 hours ago, jdp said:

I'm thinking coelacanth. This is probably a coprolite or bromalite, though.

Yup, that was my first thought, too.

It's coprolite with fish rests.

[paleoflor]

7 hours ago, jdp said:

I'm thinking coelacanth. This is probably a coprolite or bromalite, though.

Coprolite or regurgitalite would certainly fit with the chaotic distribution of body parts and the faint discolouration of the matrix. There is a recent publication about shark egg cases found at the Piesberg quarry (Fischer et al. 2019), suggesting there could have been predators around that may have eaten tiny fish...

 

Could you explain what features of the body parts lead you to think coelacanth? I would like to learn more about how to proceed when identifying such fish remains. Also, when you write "coelacanth", should I interpret this to mean "some fish belonging to the subclass Actinistia" or something more specific?

[jdp]

Something actinistian, yeah. My guess is vaguely something in the phylogenetic neighborhood to Rhabdoderma but don't quote me on that. I'm basing that mostly on scale structure (all contemporary actinopterygians have ganoin and this is not a megalichthyid or rhizodontid) but the lower jaw morphology also fits.

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

On 9/19/2019 at 8:13 PM, paleoflor said:

Additional images. Apologies for the poor quality, only way I could attempt to capture more detail was using my phone camera on my microscope. Also note the little jaw fragments (at least two) that are scattered between the scales. Beautiful, but I wish I new more about them...

 

If these scales are small (several milimeters length), then they are related to Rhizodopsis. Rhizodopsids could include many genera but only Rhizodopsis genus is found as complete fossil. I even have some similar scales in Late Emsian- Early Eifelian fluvial sandstones and lacustrine mudstones so it is possible that this family could appear earlier. Rhizodopsids survived until the end of Carboniferous period so it is not big surprise to find them in Westphalian rock layers. I recognize rhizodopsid scale for sure, it is well visible in the 5th photo and have many radial canals. The other thin plates with the same ornamentation can be skull or opercular elements The jaw doesn't show big number of features but maybe it is from the same fish.  Rhizodopsids are tetrapodomorph fish family. 

Great fossils and pictures, don't stop to be interested in vertebrate remains this is very progressive type of animals and it had many various extinct forms during the evolutionary history. 

 

Best Regards

Domas

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

19 hours ago, jdp said:

Something actinistian, yeah. My guess is vaguely something in the phylogenetic neighborhood to Rhabdoderma but don't quote me on that. I'm basing that mostly on scale structure (all contemporary actinopterygians have ganoin and this is not a megalichthyid or rhizodontid) but the lower jaw morphology also fits.

I would not think they are from coelacanth fish. I have found many coelacanth scales in Devonian fluvial sandstones but all the coelacanths in my collection have spiny surface in the lower part of scale area. Some spines are leaf like, some are sharp like needles. The other think I would say- the majority of coelacanth scales are thicker and more plate like, they also have porous surface consisted of canals in some areas.  

On 9/19/2019 at 8:13 PM, paleoflor said:

Additional images. Apologies for the poor quality, only way I could attempt to capture more detail was using my phone camera on my microscope. Also note the little jaw fragments (at least two) that are scattered between the scales. Beautiful, but I wish I new more about them...

 

If these scales are small (several milimeters length), then they are related to Rhizodopsis. Rhizodopsids could include many genera but only Rhizodopsis genus is found as complete fossil. I even have some similar scales in Late Emsian- Early Eifelian fluvial sandstones and lacustrine mudstones so it is possible that this family could appear earlier. Rhizodopsids survived until the end of Carboniferous period so it is not big surprise to find them in Westphalian rock layers. I recognize rhizodopsid scale for sure, it is well visible in the 5th photo and have many radial canals. The other thin plates with the same ornamentation can be skull or opercular elements The jaw doesn't show big number of features but maybe it is from the same fish.  Rhizodopsids are tetrapodomorph fish family. 

Great fossils and pictures, don't stop to be interested in vertebrate remains this is very progressive type of animals and it had many various extinct forms during the evolutionary history. 

 

Best Regards

Domas

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

Similar scales in my collection. The first picture table shows rhizodopsid scales from Devonian and Carboniferous, the second picture table are amioid scales of bowfin relatives but the upper part of table shows incomplete scale remain.  

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

Bowfin relatives appeared in Middle Permian by the oldest known fossil record but your fossil finds can not necessarily be from rhizodopsid they could also be from early actinopterygian because there is not very big difference between Westphalian fossils in your collection and first appearing of holosteans in Middle Permian. If you do not know, I can tell one fact that the oldest known teleost remains are 310 million years old, holosteans are teleost ancestors! Here is one gap in the science of paleontology-  teleosts appeared in so old times but no one knows from which holostean they developed because there are not any holostean taxa determined in Late Carboniferous...  

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

The scales without spines or glossy porous surface can not belong to any actinistian or rhipidistian fish except rhizodont, rhizodopsid or early onychodont but even onychodont scales talking about Devonian age usually also have small short spines on the surface and these fishes were more marine than terrestrial.

[paleoflor]

Thanks, Domas! I still have to find some time to digest it all (e.g. look up the jargon and terminology that is new to me), but you have provided a wealth of great info here!

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

13 hours ago, paleoflor said:

Thanks, Domas! I still have to find some time to digest it all (e.g. look up the jargon and terminology that is new to me), but you have provided a wealth of great info here!

Paleoflor you are welcome, it is not difficult to me to help with fish and also mollusk remains because I collect these fossils for very long time.  I show another two pictures of similar (possibly amioid) scales found in Late Emsian- Early Eifelian fluvial sandstones, the first specimen looks very similar in shape to your fossil find! Rhizodopsid scales usually have more oblong shape and also the small central growth in the lower part that speaks about their depending to rhipidistian fishes. I do not clearly see if your small specimen has that growth in the center, your fossil scale is probably more smooth in surface so we can possibly name your Carboniferous specimens and my Devonian- Triassic(?) fossils as cf. Teleosteomorpha indet. because judging by first appearing of primitive teleost in Late Carboniferous the older teleost relatives (probably small in size) had to appear earlier (they should be preserved as fossil parts in Early Carboniferous or even Devonian), although there are not any complete recognizable fossils found in that oldest times of their existing. Remembver that chondrosteans (the oldest actinopterygians) appeared in Late Silurian as genus Andreolepis and their developing was progressing in later times for sure.

Regards

Domas

[jdp]

I would generally caution against attributing anything to Rhizodopsis, and in particular this specimen. There are a number of features of the scales that are not consistent with that ID (e.g. lack of a thick enamel layer). The tooth-bearing bone is also clearly not from Rhizodopsis or any other tetrapodamorph.