FossilNerd Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 I made a trip to my new favorite Upper Ordovician (Drakes Formation) spot today (working on a field trip report ). I came across a few of these cylinders, which I believe are orthoconic nautiloids. I found them in many different sizes. Some taper as I would expect from an orthocone. However, they do not have the suture lines or septa that I am used to seeing. Some have what appears to be a possible siphuncle in the center while others do not. Here are a few pics of some of the more interesting ones. I can provide more if needed. Thoughts? Thanks in advance for any assistance! This one is about 3cm in diameter and 7.5 cm length. Number 8 in first pic. There are also a couple that have this twisting pattern on the outside. This one is about 5cm in diameter and 3.5 in length. Number 4 in first pic. Possible Siphuncle? 1 cm in diameter. Number 7. 1 The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
Manticocerasman Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 those are odd, since there are no chambers I would exclude orthocone, on the other hand if the area is known for big orthocones ( like Cameroceras ) you might have fragments of the siphuncle itself, although 3 cm seems very big for a siphuncle. I'm yust speculating now 2 growing old is mandatory but growing up is optional.
Rockwood Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 I think the isolated siphuncle idea is good. There were some monsters around at about that time. 1
FossilNerd Posted December 10, 2019 Author Posted December 10, 2019 6 hours ago, Manticocerasman said: those are odd, since there are no chambers I would exclude orthocone, on the other hand if the area is known for big orthocones ( like Cameroceras ) you might have fragments of the siphuncle itself, although 3 cm seems very big for a siphuncle. I'm yust speculating now 4 hours ago, Rockwood said: I think the isolated siphuncle idea is good. There were some monsters around at about that time. I haven't collected here much (yet...) so I'm unsure of the types of orthocones that should be found, but according to the below USGS paper, Treptoceras cincinnatiensis should be there. It's described as being Medium-sized (up to 55 cm in length, having shell diameters up to 7.5 cm). That doesn't seem big enough to have a siphuncle that size. Maybe they are something else altogether, or multiple somethings. Maybe similar to a modern tube sponge? Tube Sponge Frey, Robert C. Middle and Upper Ordovician nautiloid cephalopods of the Cincinnati arch region of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio / by Robert C. Frey. p. cm. — (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper; 1066-P) The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
Jeffrey P Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 Trace fossils? They appear similar to Ordovician ones I've seen outside of Montreal. 1
FossilNerd Posted December 10, 2019 Author Posted December 10, 2019 29 minutes ago, Jeffrey P said: Trace fossils? They appear similar to Ordovician ones I've seen outside of Montreal. Like an infilled burrow or the like? The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
Rockwood Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 1 hour ago, FossilNerd said: Like an infilled burrow or the like? The geometry seems a bit too precise, and the crystals that fill one seem too complete in my opinion. Isolated possible siphuncle fragments might not figure prominently in the listings anyway. 1
FossilNerd Posted December 10, 2019 Author Posted December 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Rockwood said: The geometry seems a bit too precise, and the crystals that fill one seem too complete in my opinion. Isolated possible siphuncle fragments might not figure prominently in the listings anyway. I thought that as well. They seem too uniform to be a burrow, but I don’t know what other trace fossil would be cylindrical. Some are definitely filled with crystals. The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
FossilNerd Posted December 10, 2019 Author Posted December 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Rockwood said: Isolated possible siphuncle fragments might not figure prominently in the listings anyway. It would be awesome if it was a siphuncle, and Camroseras (or similarly large Orthocone) may be in the area. More research is needed on my part and it definitely gives me a starting point. The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
minnbuckeye Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 I find many crystal filled orthocone cephs every year. I find many siphuncles every year. But I have YET to find a crystalized siphuncle. Not saying it couldn't be, BUT... Mike 1
erose Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 These may be the stromatoporoid Aulacera. http://strata.uga.edu/cincy/fauna/stromatoporoidea/Aulacera.html 4
FossilDAWG Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 I agree with Aulacera (which is known in the older literature as Beatricia). Don 2
piranha Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 14 hours ago, FossilNerd said: There are also a couple that have this twisting pattern on the outside. This one is about 5cm in diameter and 3.5 in length. Number 4 in first pic. The twisting pattern is a morphological feature of: Aulacera undulata figure from: Shimer, H.W., Shrock, R.R. 1944 Index Fossils of North America. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 846 pp. 2
Rockwood Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 Wow ! It does look like something a porifera would do.
FossilNerd Posted December 10, 2019 Author Posted December 10, 2019 @erose @FossilDAWG @piranha Thanks so much! I think you may be correct. Also, thanks for the link and book reference. Off I go to research! One more question... Is it wrong that I’m excited for it to be a sponge and not an nautiloid? The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)
Rockwood Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 1 minute ago, FossilNerd said: Is it wrong that I’m excited for it to be a sponge and not an nautiloid? _ _ _ _ no. 1
Peat Burns Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 3 hours ago, FossilNerd said: I’m excited for it to be a sponge and not an nautiloi I resemble that remark!
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