Show us your Devonian Epizoans & Pathological Brachiopods!

[Mediospirifer]

21 hours ago, Brach3 said:

Dear, Diana & all the women on the TFF sites  

Please accept my congratulations on the 8 marth (women day)!!!

 

Thanks! I appreciate the thoughts.  (And I do like flowers. I'd like to find a nice fossil of one someday! But it won't be in my geological stomping grounds.)

 

Here's a photo of the area you were asking about on my Cyrtina. Do you know of an epizoan that looks like a small hemisphere?

 

 

And here are a couple other areas of the same specimen. Notice that both of these images have (among other growths) more of the hemispherical Idunno whatsis:

 

 

 

And here's another epizoan that is on the Athyris spiriferoides with the interrupted growth. It resembles Hederella, but the zoecia are much too short:

 

 

Maybe the hemispheres on my Cyrtina are buds for this fossil?

 

Have a good one!

 

[Brach3]

On 3/7/2021 at 12:12 PM, Mediospirifer said:

That is an impressive collection of very cool pathologicals!  

 

 

Please, stay calm (keep calm),

@Mediospirifer it's only photo of the 10 000 devonian brachiopods...  (total 30-50 000)

each brachiopods is about 5-7 centimeter

my friends have sent me this photo and  sent some materials with epizoans & pathologicals (1 small box with pathologicals)

i can photo some pathologicals. there are really impressive brachiopods...

they conduct production in an industrial manner so we have chance to get some unique ones.

 

On 3/8/2021 at 12:31 AM, Crusty_Crab said:

I didn't even know they grew in colonies that could impact each other

 

@Crusty_Crab yes, please see Video (Links)

 

they have to live in dense colonies because of the storm and predators 

storm can't destroy brachiopods locked in each other (the same strategia and for corals)

sometimes the pressure is so strong in the colonies ))) that brachiopods just shoot out of them

 

On 3/7/2021 at 12:12 PM, Mediospirifer said:

To the microscope! 

))) i unfortunately don't have it ... and I don't know micro words 

so i don't know larvae or very small epizoans :///

but we can imagine ))) when we see Diana's photos 

 

On 3/9/2021 at 10:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

Do you know of an epizoan that looks like a small hemisphere?

it looks like Sphenothallus holdfast 

 

an other micro epizoans can be foraminifera

they exactly lived on the brachiopods

but i don't have materials (pdf) about them

 

for example: foraminifera that lived undo mud 

 

may be foraminifera or Idunno whatsis ))) it about 0.5 - 1 mm

 

and here may be foraminifera , may be gastropoda = Idunno whatsis

 

may me Botryllopora it's hard to understand

but very interesting 

 

and here may be foraminifera, i've seen the same in jurassic 

we need "To the microscope! " + many new examples for understanding 

 

-----------------

 

very interesting!  it looks like weakening of the sculpture in an elderly brachiopod

 

------------------------------

On 3/8/2021 at 12:31 AM, Crusty_Crab said:

I would call stress fractures with no sign of healing, would that be correct?

 

we have 2 situation:

1.  The weight of the rapidly accumulating sediment when mud crushes only  the up-facing parts of the valves 

 

they were in life position 

 + 

 

 

when "parts of the shell remain inside"

but this photo is for discussion for 10-20 years or infinity

because people want to see here only predators + injures and don't want to hear any more )))

and I don't insist )))  

 

2.  Shrinkage of the host sediment.  when there weren't mud into brachiopods (it was alive)

And pressure have flattened brachiopods 

 

 

[Mediospirifer]

On 3/9/2021 at 2:50 AM, Brach3 said:

@Mediospirifer it's only photo of the 10 000 devonian brachiopods...  (total 30-50 000)

 

Wow. That is an impressive collection! I would have a lot of fun looking through those for oddities...

 

You do realize that I'll have to answer in kind? 

 

Here's most of my Glyptorthis insculpta collection. I haven't counted how many there are, but its probably at least 2,000. I don't have industrial-scale collection, after all, just me and my husband (and a site where we can gather a few hundred while sitting in one place):

 

 

 

 

Plus my book of clefted Glyptorthis. I have 344 specimens in here, plus a few in Riker mounts for public display:

 

 

That's the only species that I have ridiculous numbers of, and they're not large; only 1-2 cm each (or smaller). But Mr. Spirifer and I tend to collect everything we see in the field (not just perfect or rare specimens), so my garage has several shelves filled with boxes of rocks. So does my workroom. While they're mostly not anywhere close to being museum-grade, I have a lot to look at and enjoy. 

 

On 3/9/2021 at 2:50 AM, Brach3 said:

may me Botryllopora

 

That's a microconchid. Much smaller than Botryllopora. 

 

On 3/9/2021 at 2:50 AM, Brach3 said:

and here may be foraminifera

 

I haven't looked into foraminifera much, but the little I have looked at hasn't been this kind of branching structure. This growth habit looks more like Hederella, except that the ends of the zoecia are closed not open. And, of course, this is smaller than any hederelloid I've heard of. I'll have to post this in the Fossil ID forum!

 

On 3/9/2021 at 2:50 AM, Brach3 said:

weakening of the sculpture in an elderly brachiopod

 

I'll have to post some of my larger Glyptorthis. The biggest ones tend to have ragged growth around the valve margin, and I'd be interested in seeing your opinion. 

 

Let's talk geological damage. I have a lot of flattened or crushed brachiopods, of varying species. Here's one with an interesting distortion:

 

 

 

 

That may (at first look) resemble a cleft, but the valve plications are not distorted relative to each other. This is the whole specimen having been laterally compressed. The term I've heard for this kind of distortion is plastic deformation. 

 

On 3/9/2021 at 2:50 AM, Brach3 said:

when "parts of the shell remain inside"

but this photo is for discussion for 10-20 years or infinity

 

This collection interests me! 

 

There's a similar type of damage that I have a number of examples of in my Glyptorthis collection. They all have a few features in common: complete specimens, reasonably well-inflated (not crushed), and with a triangular punch in the flatter valve. Here's an example:

 

 

 

After looking at a dozen or so of these, and wondering what sort of predator might have inflicted such marks, I came to a realization. The matrix that holds these brachiopods often has multiple layers of valves.

 

 

I noted that the shape of the punch-mark in the flat valve can be matched by the profile of the ridge of another specimen's convex valve. This looks to me like a result of stacking and compression.

 

I suspect that your holed brachiopods have a similar explanation. Here's an illustration of my hypothesis:

 

 

Does this look plausible to you? 

 

Here are a few more brachiopods with cut-marks inflicted (I think) by the hinge of a disarticulated valve. On the first one, the impression is unmistakeable!

 

 

These next two, it could be something other than the hinge, but it's certainly a post-fossilization cut from geological compression.

 

 

 

Here's a Glyptorthis that lived in a crowd. Note that while it appears to have a midline cleft, this could be more plastic deformation. There's to much matrix present for me to be certain, so it's not part of my "Clefted" collection.

 

 

 

 

This one, on the other hand, is one of my more extreme examples of a midline cleft:

 

 

 

This poor critter looks like it was nearly bitten in half! And yet, it survived and kept growing for a while. These were tough little creatures!

 

One last specimen that caught my eye while I was looking for the other specimens in this post. I'll have to look into bryozoans to identify the epizoan on the inside of this single valve:

 

 

 

Enjoy! 

 

[Mediospirifer]

A couple more specimens. 

 

The notch on the side of this specimen looks curious.

 

 

 

 

When I first saw this one, I thought it was a pathology. Then I found another such specimen in a hash plate, and I could see that the distortion was caused by a disarticulated valve's hinge tooth having been impressed by geological processes. 

 

And one last pathological. Notice the third bump near the hinge teeth!

 

 

 

Some sort of foreign irritant got into this brachiopod's mantle, and is now encased in shell material. 

 

Enjoy!

 

[Brach3]

On 3/13/2021 at 9:26 AM, Mediospirifer said:

You do realize that I'll have to answer in kind? 

 

@Mediospirifer Hoped so. )))

 

sorry I didn't answer for a long time

 

Now I saw everything

it's really great idea. we need to take it into service

like coins, applause, 

---

yes, i dont see here any damages too

only plastic deformation.

----

 

yes ("a post-fossilization"), i have posted some photo 

 "Pressure-dissolution" (from Alexander, 1986)

---

yes it's very interesting situation 

i have several fossils too, please see 

here may be "that lived in a crowd."

#1 Cyrtospirifer sp.

 

#2 Atrypa sp.

 

#3 from jurrasic Russiella sp.

it looks like damage , not "that lived in a crowd."

but in this way )))

 

#4 Choristites sp. from Carboniferous  

and here it looks like "that lived in a crowd."

 

---

i think it's damage  too

"These were tough little creatures!" )))

---

 

to the museum...  

---

"what sort of predator might have inflicted such marks" = storm

"layering zones" = the brachiopods were submerged and eroded into the bottom sediments (and so many times)

mud + outputs of broken valves = hard substrate for brachiopods 

 

---

it's very rare fossils!!! (into the safe and on the lock!)

epizoans into the valves  (jpg)

please see zip archive with articles on the post box

i have never seen such photo only in articles )))

or i see what i want to see... ))))))) please check the hypothesis above 

 

you have unique opportunities to search for them (single valves!!!)

---

 

On 3/13/2021 at 9:26 AM, Mediospirifer said:

Does this look plausible to you? 

 

why not, but then much closer

Cyrtospirifer sp. have a short pedicle, a very short

 

on my opinion it's pressure + empty shells 

 

 

---

and about micro

please see Podichnus sp. it's footprints of a brachiopod (place of the attachment) 

on the ammonit from jurassic

 

and on the belemnite from jurassic

please see zip #2 archive with articles on the post box

----------

i have done it hahaha  translation and text .................... 

we go for the record!!! )))

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Brach3

[Crusty_Crab]

@Mediospirifer & @Brach3 Wow, that is crazy impressive amounts of brachiopods. 

 

Last week, I was at the Indian Gardens Paleo Site near Payson, Arizona which has copious amounts of brachiopods. It is the Pennsylvanian Naco Formation and many of them had some passengers on their valves. 

 

Composita subtilita (Hall, 1852), not sure what's on it, is that a coral?

 

[Crusty_Crab]

An interesting specimen, it seems to be thickly encrusted with bryozoans, completely covering the anterior end:

 

 

 

From this picture, it appears that the two valves have been cemented shut, but I'm not sure if that happened before or after the brachiopod died:

[Crusty_Crab]

Finally an epibiont on epibiont? Looks like a fenestrate bryozoan colonized it, which in turn was colonized by another encrusting bryozoan?

 

 

 

[Mediospirifer]

42 minutes ago, Crusty_Crab said:

Composita subtilita (Hall, 1852), not sure what's on it, is that a coral?

 

Looks similar to a cornulitid (thought to be micro tubeworms). Here's and example from the Middle Devonian:

 

 

That's one of the larger ones I've found, on a small Mucrospirifer. The Cornulites sp. is around 5 mm long.

 

33 minutes ago, Crusty_Crab said:

From this picture, it appears that the two valves have been cemented shut, but I'm not sure if that happened before or after the brachiopod died:

 

That would be after. Brachiopods can support an amazing burden on their shells and keep growing. Here's a blog post featuring a cool specimen: LINK. On my bryozoan-encrusted specimens where the brachiopod was alive when the bryozoan was growing, the bryo grows up to the aperture but not across. 

 

28 minutes ago, Crusty_Crab said:

Finally an epibiont on epibiont? Looks like a fenestrate bryozoan colonized it, which in turn was colonized by another encrusting bryozoan?

 

Can you get a close-up of the exposed fenestrate bryo? It's difficult to make out in your macro photos. There's certainly an encrusting bryo in your last image. 

 

Very cool specimens! 

 

@Brach3, I will respond (at length) after I have more of a chance to read the papers you sent me. The ones I have looked at so far are interesting! But I expect to be busy for the next few days; my new digital microscope is due for delivery tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to playing with it and figuring out its features!

 

After I get it working, I'll start documenting more of my epizoans. 

 

[Mediospirifer]

11 hours ago, Mediospirifer said:

 

12 hours ago, Crusty_Crab said:

From this picture, it appears that the two valves have been cemented shut, but I'm not sure if that happened before or after the brachiopod died:

 

That would be after. Brachiopods can support an amazing burden on their shells and keep growing. Here's a blog post featuring a cool specimen: LINK. On my bryozoan-encrusted specimens where the brachiopod was alive when the bryozoan was growing, the bryo grows up to the aperture but not across. 

 

Looking again at your photos, I'm rethinking this.

 

I'm not familiar with Pennsylvanian brachiopods, but what I can see of this one looks like it was a variety that lived in a vertical position. Your bryozoan is encrusting what would have been the highest areas on the live brachiopod. A dead brachiopod should have fallen over on one side, and we would see the bryo colonizing the upper valve. I don't see evidence of that.

 

Also, I notice (now) that the projections where the bryo extended beyond the valve margin are actually paired: we see one knob on either side of the brachiopod's aperture, now cemented together. Had the brachiopod been dead when those grew, I would expect the bryo to have grown single knobs across the aperture.

 

12 hours ago, Crusty_Crab said:

 

 

 

 

I do see a boundary in the bryo growth between the two valves. The question I have for you is, when you look at the boundary under the microscope, can you see any intergrowth between the two colonies (treating each valve as a separate colony)? If so, then the brachiopod must have died before the bryo did, but not by enough time for the bryo to cover the aperture completely. If not, then they either died together (buried in a mudslide, perhaps) or the brachiopod was the survivor.

 

My understanding of bryo growth (which could certainly be wrong, I'm not an expert!) suggests that the bryo colony wouldn't be able to bind the valves together while the brachiopod was alive. I don't know how long it takes for a bryo animal to grow a calcified cell, or how strong the walls are, but if it was easy for bryos to bridge the gap and keep it closed, then it would be more difficult to distinguish between living relationshipd and colonized dead shells.

 

Very cool specimen! And I expect to see some excitement from Brach3 when he gets his translation ready. 

 

[Crusty_Crab]

21 hours ago, Mediospirifer said:

 

Looks similar to a cornulitid (thought to be micro tubeworms). Here's and example from the Middle Devonian:

 

 

That's one of the larger ones I've found, on a small Mucrospirifer. The Cornulites sp. is around 5 mm long.

 

 

That would be after. Brachiopods can support an amazing burden on their shells and keep growing. Here's a blog post featuring a cool specimen: LINK. On my bryozoan-encrusted specimens where the brachiopod was alive when the bryozoan was growing, the bryo grows up to the aperture but not across. 

 

 

Can you get a close-up of the exposed fenestrate bryo? It's difficult to make out in your macro photos. There's certainly an encrusting bryo in your last image. 

 

Very cool specimens! 

 

@Brach3, I will respond (at length) after I have more of a chance to read the papers you sent me. The ones I have looked at so far are interesting! But I expect to be busy for the next few days; my new digital microscope is due for delivery tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to playing with it and figuring out its features!

 

After I get it working, I'll start documenting more of my epizoans. 

 

Unfortunately I just have a smartphone and clip on macro lens which suffers from a very shallow focal plane. I'm anxious to see how your new digital microscope works out. 

 

I tried retaking a photo of the portion with fenestrate bryozoan thats been encrusted in turn.

 

In this photo, hopefully the contrast is more clear, with the fenestrate bryozoan near the top and smoother portion at the bottom with only the encrusting bryozoan. 

 

[Crusty_Crab]

9 hours ago, Mediospirifer said:

 

Looking again at your photos, I'm rethinking this.

 

I'm not familiar with Pennsylvanian brachiopods, but what I can see of this one looks like it was a variety that lived in a vertical position. Your bryozoan is encrusting what would have been the highest areas on the live brachiopod. A dead brachiopod should have fallen over on one side, and we would see the bryo colonizing the upper valve. I don't see evidence of that.

 

Also, I notice (now) that the projections where the bryo extended beyond the valve margin are actually paired: we see one knob on either side of the brachiopod's aperture, now cemented together. Had the brachiopod been dead when those grew, I would expect the bryo to have grown single knobs across the aperture.

 

 

I do see a boundary in the bryo growth between the two valves. The question I have for you is, when you look at the boundary under the microscope, can you see any intergrowth between the two colonies (treating each valve as a separate colony)? If so, then the brachiopod must have died before the bryo did, but not by enough time for the bryo to cover the aperture completely. If not, then they either died together (buried in a mudslide, perhaps) or the brachiopod was the survivor.

 

My understanding of bryo growth (which could certainly be wrong, I'm not an expert!) suggests that the bryo colony wouldn't be able to bind the valves together while the brachiopod was alive. I don't know how long it takes for a bryo animal to grow a calcified cell, or how strong the walls are, but if it was easy for bryos to bridge the gap and keep it closed, then it would be more difficult to distinguish between living relationshipd and colonized dead shells.

 

Very cool specimen! And I expect to see some excitement from Brach3 when he gets his translation ready. 

 

 

I had the same thought about the knobs last night as I was thinking about it and none of them straddle the aperture. 3 of them are exclusively on the brachial valve and one on the pedicle valve. The paired knobs meeting in the middle also demonstrate that well. 

 

In this view, the pedicle valve is to the right and brachial valve to left. There doesn't seem to be growth between the valves. 

 

This view is looking down from the anterior to posterior axis, with pedicle valve to right. At the bottom, the aperture is still evident but at the top, the bryozoans seem to have completely covered the aperture. 

 

Here's another view, with the pedicle valve to left this time:

 

A more lateral view with the pedicle valve to the left, with the aperture completely engulfed:

 

 

 

[Brach3]

On 3/24/2021 at 9:48 AM, Crusty_Crab said:

Arizona which has copious amounts of brachiopods.

@Mediospirifer and @Crusty_Crab  " I appreciate the thoughts. "  we're on the right track! and please see the collection locations from the books/articles that I have previously sent. And about "Wow, that is crazy impressive amounts of brachiopods." i am going to photo some more on the holidays. 

 

About it please see our discussion with Diana LINK

 

On 3/24/2021 at 10:47 AM, Mediospirifer said:

a cool specimen: LINK. On my bryozoan-encrusted specimens where the brachiopod was alive when the bryozoan was growing, the bryo grows up to the aperture but not across. 

Yes this is our conversation but i cant find it ))) so i will write again 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 10:01 AM, Crusty_Crab said:

but I'm not sure if that happened before or after the brachiopod died:

in articles we have 2 situation: 

1. bryozoan cross the commissura (from one  valve to another) - after the brachiopod has died ("Had the brachiopod been dead when those grew, I would expect the bryo to have grown single knobs across the aperture.")

2. bryozoan don't cross the commissura - brachiopod hasn't died, because bryozoan can't bridge the gap between the valves (or in Diana's words: "On my bryozoan-encrusted specimens where the brachiopod was alive when the bryozoan was growing, the bryo grows up to the aperture but not across.")

 

 

BUT we have found several examples here in Russia + see Diana's link above, which prove that the bryozoan could cross the commissura but not touch the other sash (the bryozoan weighs over the second valve)

 

№1  Ordovician brachiopod

 

№2  Ordovician brachiopod (collection of paleoserg)

 

№3 Cyrtospirifer sp.

 

#4 permian brachiopod (collection of Maxim Paperny)

 

like here:

#5 modern 

 

so dear scientists - it's time to rewrite your scientific articles  we have evidences )))

 

On 3/24/2021 at 10:47 AM, Mediospirifer said:

after I have more of a chance to read the papers you sent me.

I suggest you limit yourself to just looking at the photos, because we're only trying to find them on the fossils  and if we don't have them, what for we read ))) so only photos = 10-15 minutes 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 10:47 AM, Mediospirifer said:

After I get it working, I'll start documenting more of my epizoans. 

and we will watch  ))) ok, i am going to photo some fossils too... because we have the start of the 2021 season ahead of us and our photos will help everyone to collect brachiopods (dreaming) 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Brach3

[Crusty_Crab]

11 hours ago, Brach3 said:

@Mediospirifer and @Crusty_Crab  " I appreciate the thoughts. "  we're on the right track! and please see the collection locations from the books/articles that I have previously sent. And about "Wow, that is crazy impressive amounts of brachiopods." i am going to photo some more on the holidays. 

 

About it please see our discussion with Diana LINK

 

Yes this is our conversation but i cant find it ))) so i will write again 

 

in articles we have 2 situation: 

1. bryozoan cross the commissura (from one  valve to another) - after the brachiopod has died ("Had the brachiopod been dead when those grew, I would expect the bryo to have grown single knobs across the aperture.")

2. bryozoan don't cross the commissura - brachiopod hasn't died, because bryozoan can't bridge the gap between the valves (or in Diana's words: "On my bryozoan-encrusted specimens where the brachiopod was alive when the bryozoan was growing, the bryo grows up to the aperture but not across.")

 

 

BUT we have found several examples here in Russia + see Diana's link above, which prove that the bryozoan could cross the commissura but not touch the other sash (the bryozoan weighs over the second valve)

 

№1  Ordovician brachiopod

 

№2  Ordovician brachiopod (collection of paleoserg)

 

№3 Cyrtospirifer sp.

 

#4 permian brachiopod (collection of Maxim Paperny)

 

like here:

#5 modern 

 

so dear scientists - it's time to rewrite your scientific articles  we have evidences )))

 

I suggest you limit yourself to just looking at the photos, because we're only trying to find them on the fossils  and if we don't have them, what for we read ))) so only photos = 10-15 minutes 

 

and we will watch  ))) ok, i am going to photo some fossils too... because we have the start of the 2021 season ahead of us and our photos will help everyone to collect brachiopods (dreaming) 

 

 

I apologize if this has already been asked, but to me the obvious question now is: if bryozoans can bridge the valves, then is there a cost to the host? Are they no longer harmless epibionts that can hold the valves open or closed? 

[Mediospirifer]

1 hour ago, Crusty_Crab said:

I apologize if this has already been asked, but to me the obvious question now is: if bryozoans can bridge the valves, then is there a cost to the host? Are they no longer harmless epibionts that can hold the valves open or closed?

 

I can speculate, but there's a lot that I don't know here.

 

My suspicion is that for a bryozoan to successfully bridge the gap of a brachiopod's open aperture, the bryo would have to grow a span long enough to reach across when the aperture is open for feeding. This could (potentially) be done with colonies on either side of the gap that then make contact between paired knobs, far enough away from the brachiopod that when it opens up to feed the contact isn't simply torn apart. This might be difficult for species that develop calcareous exoskeletons; they'd need to have a certain amount of flexibility to avoid having such a bridge broken as the brachiopod opens or closes.

 

Keep in mind that bryozoan mats are colonies of small individuals. The mats grow at the edges and upper parts of the knobs (according to Wikipedia) by budding, and form the calcareous exoskeleton only when new zooids are mature. I don't know how long it takes for a new zooid to reach maturity and secrete its exoskeleton, but I'd be very surprised if it was less than a few days. I'd also be surprised if the brachiopod was unable to tear the new zooids away from the colony if they try to anchor themselves to the other valve while the brachiopod is closed. This might be how a second colony formed on the other valve in the first place; I don't know.

 

I think the real burden for the brachiopod would be a combination of the excess weight of having a massive colony growing on it (possibly making feeding more difficult), plus the effect of the bryozoan colony filtering the water flowing into the brachiopod. This would potentially reduce the amount of food available to the brachiopod. I don't know how significant either effect would be.

 

Good question! 

 

[Crusty_Crab]

Cleaning some more specimens from the Pennsylvanian Naco Formation of Arizona, I see what you mean about carrying a heavy burden:

 

 

 

 

[Mediospirifer]

@Crusty_Crab, that does look like the bryozoan lived with the brachiopod (not just occupying the dead shells)!  Nice specimen!

 

@Brach3, I have some photos for you! I've been looking through my Glyptorthis single valves (that aren't in either the "Clefted" collection or the bags tagged as "Normal"), and I've found some that I think you'll find interesting. For tonight, I have four. There may be a lot more to come! 

 

Enjoy! 

 

The first three are partial single valves. 

 

1: From the outside, it appears normal, possibly with a minor cleft just to the right of center.

 

 

On the inside, it's a little more interesting. There's a blister just left of center:

 

 

Here it is with a light behind it:

 

 

And a couple of closeups, using direct light and backlight:

 

 

 

2: Again, it looks pretty normal from the outside, except for a minor cleft left of center:

 

 

And again, it's more interesting on the inside:

 

 

Backlit:

 

 

And closeups:

 

 

 

Closer still:

 

 

 

Cool, huh? One thing I notice about these two is that (unlike the specimens in the papers you sent me) neither has an aperture where an endosymbiont might have collected food from the brachiopod's interior. This suggests to me that either these were caused by nonliving matter that washed into the open valves, or the endosymbiont died and was fully encased in the brachiopod's valve before the brachiopod died. I don't know which is more likely.

 

Which brings us to #3...

 

3: Another fragment with a minor cleft, this time significant enough to affect the valve margin. 

 

 

Curiously enough, the inside shows a blister where the cleft is. 

 

 

Backlit: (Whoops. I didn't take a backlit view at this magnification. Next!)

 

Closer in:

 

 

And backlit:

 

 

Does that look like it has an opening to you? Let's look closer:

 

 

And backlit:

 

 

It certainly has a sediment-filled depression in the tip, and that backlit shadow is very interesting! Here's the cleft from outside at this magnification:

 

 

Would this be an example of a specimen that had a parasite burrow into the valve from outside and take up residence? This makes me wonder what the other valve looked like! 

 

And on to #4!

 

4: This is a more complete specimen, and again looks normal from the outside. 

 

 

On the inside:

 

 

Backlit:

 

 

That's quite a shadow! Let's look closer:

 

 

And backlit:

 

 

And closer:

 

 

I don't see any sign of a feeding aperture. Dead matter intrusion, or dead worm burrow? 

 

You may have noticed a second feature on the inside of this valve. Here's a closeup of that:

 

 

There's a thicker area in the valve, with a non-circular pit. Might this be a burrow that collapsed?

 

I'll continue examining and photographing my specimens, and share what I find as I can. 

 

[Brach3]

I think everything is simple with them there because the brachiopods are not people.  When we sleep we close eyes, but the brachiopods have their valves opened all the times. They close their valves when there are bad condition around, bright light or danger, and spit out leftover food and shaking off debris. So bryozoan cant bridge the gap but can hanging down. a thought has flashed through my mind: a brachiopod can bite off a colony of bryozoan hanging down or cant?  )))))))

 

On 3/31/2021 at 10:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

that does look like the bryozoan lived with the brachiopod

Yes i think so too, a very nice specimen 

 

On 3/31/2021 at 10:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

I have some photos for you!

thank you!!! 

it is very pleasant to look at such samples

 

this is an injury not of clear origin

i have seen similar to such damages

it could be anything 

 

this is an ordinary shell substance, it can be of any shape

like here on the modern valve:

 

 ... fantastic detail! is this already done under the microscope?

but i need your comment: is it a depressed hole or a bulging scar?

it seems like a bulging scar

  

On 3/31/2021 at 10:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

Cool, huh?

 

 huh ... very cool

 

On 3/31/2021 at 10:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

an endosymbiont might have collected food from the brachiopod's interior.

endosymbiont don't eat brachiopods. they eat 

micro particles and food residues of brachiopods, 

they are not interested in the host's death otherwise they will also die

I think it is necessary to consider such relationships in this way

"I don't know which is more likely." = so we need more samples )))))) 

you have an unique opportunity, here in Russia we have brachiopods only with mud inside or with crystals 

so let see your samples!

 

"Would this be an example of a specimen that had a parasite burrow into the valve from outside and take up residence? " i think no, because the larvae of the parasite don't need to burrow into or drill it because the brachiopods valves are always open (the door is always open = welcome)

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Little is known about the parasites of modern (sov.) brachiopods

1) Monocystid gregarins (in russian Моноцистидные грегарины) (Blochmann, 1892) in the gut of modern brachiopods, Crania anomala. Monocystid gregarins are protists (single-celled organisms) that live in the gut. They are usually attached to the epithelium of the host intestine through an attachment organelle of different structures.

2) Metacercariae of trematodes (Метацеркарии трематод) (Paine, 1962) in individuals of modern brachiopods Glottidia pyramidata. Metacercariae trematodes are the life stage of flatworms of the Trematode class, which are also otherwise called flukes. Flukes are also parasites, usually of the digestive system. They have a complex life cycle with the change of several hosts. The metacercaria stage is a dormant stage, it is clothed with cysts, and waits for the brachiopod to be eaten by the next host, such as a fish. In fish, metacercaria develops into the next stage - marita, which begins to reproduce.

3) Lichomolgid copepod (Лихомольгидная копепода) (Shipley, 1883) in Lophophora Argyrotheca sp. Copepods are crustaceans, quite small, but many of them do not develop in plankton, but become parasitic. Parasitic crustaceans are very diverse.

4) Zezina (1976): "In the mantle cavity of brachiopods, animals were found, the nature of the relationship with which is still not fully understood.

4.1) Infusoria (Инфузория) Urceolaria Kozloffi (Bradbury, 1970) on the integument of the animal and other invertebrates. In 1996, a study was conducted by our scientists, the results are described in the article given at the beginning of the publication. Urceolaria kozloffi in the lophophore of modern brachiopods Hemithyris psittacea.

I would like to add lines from the article: "Urceolariae gracefully hover over the lophophore".

4.2) Amphipod (Бокоплавы) Leucothoe spinicarpa and Aristias neglectus (Walker, 1909) usually find refuge in sponges and tunicates. Bokoplavy-this is another crustacean, which usually use brachiopods as a shelter.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

"I don't see any sign of a feeding aperture."

and i  it dont look like drilling worms

may be scars, may be compaction of the shell substance

it difficult to say 

 

no ideas too, very interesting! 

 

@Mediospirifer & @Crusty_Crab i have some problems with the photos, i am going to do it on these weekends 

 

but i have very interesting samples on the 1 april 

i see here some brachiopods Idunno whatsis in the live positions + wave ripple marks on the sea mud )))

it's a very rare sample! 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Brach3

[Coco]

Are you sure they’re not Pinna deep in their substrate, waiting for their meal ?

 

Coco

[Mediospirifer]

15 hours ago, Brach3 said:

a brachiopod can bite off a colony of bryozoan hanging down or cant?

 

That's a good question!

 

I would speculate that it depends on the water currents into the valves. If the current carries a bryozoan colony into the space, it would be possible. How strong are the connections within a bryozoan colony?  

 

15 hours ago, Brach3 said:

 

Those two areas are not the same place on the shell. On the backlit image, the blister is outlined in blue, and the other feature (an ostracod shell cemented to the brachiopod by matrix, probably postmortem) shows through in the shadowed area outlined in red.

 

 

16 hours ago, Brach3 said:

here on the modern valve:

 

 

I like those modern images! It's good to get an idea of how quickly a brachiopod can regrow a damaged valve.

 

15 hours ago, Brach3 said:

is it a depressed hole or a bulging scar?

 

It's a bulging scar. From the shape, I'm thinking it may be a closed-off worm burrow.

 

And yes, all of these photos are taken with my new microscope. 

 

16 hours ago, Brach3 said:

On 3/31/2021 at 3:21 AM, Mediospirifer said:

an endosymbiont might have collected food from the brachiopod's interior.

endosymbiont don't eat brachiopods. they eat 

micro particles and food residues of brachiopods, 

they are not interested in the host's death otherwise they will also die

 

What I mean by "the brachiopod's interior" is "inside the brachiopod's shell". I know they filter food particles out of the water, just as the brachiopod does. 

 

16 hours ago, Brach3 said:

i see here some brachiopods Idunno whatsis in the live positions + wave ripple marks on the sea mud )))

 

   ( I think some hungry predators might be approaching! Hmm. What would eat the brachiopods and the mud they grow on? )

 

Here are a couple of closeups of that lump near the hinge teeth that I posted earlier:

 

 

 

Like the other blisters I've posted so far (and the ones I haven't photographed but have set aside), this appears to be closed off. From the shape, and the height it stands above the valve lining, I think it's more likely to be from an endosymbiont than from trapped debris.

 

I'm still looking through my collection.  I'll photograph more soon.

 

[Brach3]

@Mediospirifer @Coco @Crusty_Crab we have discussed about some examples ( link )

 

today i've found a new brachiopod in the green box

this is exactly not modern mechanical injure 

it looks like indentation by neighbor's valves and we can see the structure of the neighbor's valve

and there are no damages from the other side 

 

it's reminder for me - i've made these photos 

but i need fast internet and i will post them tomorrow on the work ))) 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 8:09 AM, Mediospirifer said:

And yes, all of these photos are taken with my new microscope. 

 

i have never seen so closer microfossils never

please say some words + photos of this atomic microscope

are it from the future? 

 

and i have never seen fossils on the light ))) applause 

i need microscope.......  )))

---------------

 

and some words about my photo of the box above

all these brachiopods are from Voronezh region from Rudkino from the river Don in the modern mud  )))

but unique preservation...  no cleaning/preparation required

  

 

this is not my photo but i put it to show size (they are too big) and form (bilateral symmetry)

i dont have collection but have some brachiopods with pathology 

and you can compare this photo with the photos I will post tomorrow

damage and symmetry breaking will be very clearly visible (contrast) 

 

intrigue... 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Brach3

[Brach3]

 

@Mediospirifer & all, enjoy  

 

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #2 chewed brachiopod 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #5 may be algue or sponges (brachiopod ulceration / bioerosion)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #6 + geological crumple

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #7 + geological crumple

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1 - Productida on the Cyrtospirifer sp.

2 - modern gastropod capsules ))) but them have been collected like fossils ))))

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #8 + tightness of the settlement (may be)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #9 + frequent bites / chipping marks

 

for Cyrtospirifer sp. i have seen the teeth, so #9 may be fish or may be cephalopod

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #10 + shell break

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #11 + "ruffling of scales"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #12 + Cephalopod Predation

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #12 + the ear was bitten off )))

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #13 + the ear was bitten off )))

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

   

Cyrtospirifer sp. #14 + the ear was bitten off

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  

Cyrtospirifer sp. #15 + part of the shell was broken off and preserved!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Cyrtospirifer sp. #16

 

this fish tooth is from the same place (1 sm size)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

we have an unique chance to see everything very well because the shells are huge and do not require preparation

the max size of the brachiopod from Rudkino is 7.8 sm 

the damages are not rare, i think many brachiopods were simply destroyed (a successful predator attack)

but we can see only unsuccessful predator attacks

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Brach3

[Mediospirifer]

On 4/4/2021 at 9:38 AM, Brach3 said:

it looks like indentation by neighbor's valves and we can see the structure of the neighbor's valve

and there are no damages from the other side 

 

Very nice! It does indeed look like a healed compression injury. We can say that it's not predator-inflicted because a predator would have followed through and eaten the brachiopod once the valve was breached.

 

One question, what is the dark ridge outlined in red?

 

 

That looks like something dark embedded in the shell! Worm burrow? 

 

On 4/4/2021 at 9:38 AM, Brach3 said:

please say some words + photos of this atomic microscope

are it from the future? 

 

It's a Dino-Lite AF4915ZT. I posted some photos in the "Let's see your latest mailbox score!" thread: LINK. It was expensive, but worth it. 

 

 

 

That collection of pathologicals is very impressive! I'd love to examine them in person. I'll just have to look at your photos... I'll comment on a few more details later, when I have more time.

 

13 hours ago, Brach3 said:

the damages are not rare, i think many brachiopods were simply destroyed (a successful predator attack)

but we can see only unsuccessful predator attacks

 

 

Yes. A predator would only leave shell fragments, if they didn't eat the shells along with the flesh. We're seeing the ones that got away.

 

Very cool!

 

[Brach3]

12 hours ago, Mediospirifer said:

That looks like something dark embedded in the shell! Worm burrow? 

 

 

@Mediospirifer Yes, you are right. this is worm burrow. These brachiopods are very big and their valves are wide/thick. The thickness is about 2-3 mm.

And worm lived in the Cyrtospirifer valves. We call them Trypanites sp. 

this is an interesting story about them. i know one scientist here in Russia and he has helped us to determine these traces. 

but the definition is conditional and requires clarification because ... an other russian scientist don't accept this definition for a number of reasons

it have been  a battle  for 2-3 years )))) and they still haven't agreed, but they've agreed to call it that for now. 

 

Trypanites from ordovician 

 

 

    

Trypanites from devon. black traces are black mud.

 

and about this scientist he likes and knows all about Trace fossils

we have many questions on the mud for examples 

 

Lockeia sp - a place of rest, feeding of bivalves

 

the track of the movement of the bivalves

 

this was a quest : what is it? )))

we have assumed all the paleo site but no one guessed )))))

no one will ever guess  

 

ok, and he has helped us to determine some traces in the Cyrtospirifer 

i\ll post some photo it's very interesting too

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

and i have found my reconstruction for  Sphenothallus holdfast

  

 

it was like here so please see on your brachiopods, i have seen something close above your topics 

 

  

they are rare fossils but we have found them

please see Sphenothallus holdfast on your brachiopods

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and please see the reconstruction for Productida (productida in longitudinal section with long plume)

on this photo we can see only attachment site / germination site

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Brach3

[Mediospirifer]

On 4/6/2021 at 4:23 AM, Brach3 said:

These brachiopods are very big and their valves are wide/thick. The thickness is about 2-3 mm.

 

The only brachiopod I have that are close to that size are my Spinocyrtia granulosa and Mediospirifer specimens. I don't know if Athyris spiriferoides or Pseudoatrypa devoniana have thick enough valves to support a worm burrow, but I can keep my eyes open next time I look at them. I haven't noticed evidence of burrows. I have seen boreholes in my horn corals, but they're probably something different.

 

On 4/6/2021 at 4:23 AM, Brach3 said:

they are rare fossils but we have found them

please see Sphenothallus holdfast on your brachiopods

 

The nodules I've looked at and posted photos of don't really look like the Sphenothallus holdfasts your images show. It looks like Sphenothallus should have a ring-shaped bump (toroidal) with a depression in the center. Mine are hemispherical. The epizoans I've seen that look the most like Sphenothallus holdfasts are some of the microconchids, and they're recognizably different.

 

I have two relevant collections to explore here: my Glyptorthis and other Ordovician fossils, and my Middle Devonian fossils. The latter group includes a lot of horn corals and bryozoans (among other types).

 

I've been going through the Glyptorthis collection recently, looking to see what affected the internal surface of my single-valve specimens, and what sorts of interesting deformations or externally-living epizoans I can find. I'll photograph and post the ones I think you might like. 

 

I'm also planning to photograph some of my Devonian specimens extensively. Some of them have several species of epizoans that lived on them, especially the horn corals! I'll post details on the communities I find as I have time.

 

I'm hoping to get some good photos over the weekend.