Some interesting Mazon Creek specimens

[Mark Kmiecik]

Need ID help, either confirm or refute my guesses on items E0055 and H0009, and then what is that at the base of the pinnule in item E0066? Thank you in advance for any suggestions. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Mark Kmiecik
adjust photos

[Nimravis]

009 appears to be a correct ID, just in side view.

[Mark Kmiecik]

2 minutes ago, Nimravis said:

009 appears to be a correct ID, just in side view.

 

Thanks for taking a look, Ralph. What do you think of that "growth" on 066? It's on the convex half, but not on the concave counterpart, and does not align directly with the venation.

[Nimravis]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

 

Thanks for taking a look, Ralph. What do you think of that "growth" on 066? It's on the convex half, but not on the concave counterpart, and does not align directly with the venation.

I am not sure about that one, sometimes, as you know, what appears to be crystalline growth on some pieces, but I do not think that is the case. Whatever it is, it looks cool.

[Mark Kmiecik]

1 minute ago, Nimravis said:

I am not sure about that one, sometimes, as you know, what appears to be crystalline growth on some pieces, but I do not think that is the case. Whatever it is, it looks cool.

 

Its definitely not calcite or any crystalline growth. It's buggin' me big time -- looks familiar, but I can't place it.

[Fossildude19]

Asterophyllites "flower"?

[Mark Kmiecik]

28 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Asterophyllites "flower"?

 

Possibly -- what bothers me is the lack of its presence on the couterpart. Thanks for taking a look, Tim.

[Mark Kmiecik]

@fiddlehead Jack, I would appreciate your input on E0055 and E0066. Thank you in advance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Mark Kmiecik
fix typo

[paleoflor]

Your Specimen E0066 is really intriguing! Is it possible that the "convex half" shows the abaxial side of the pinnule, where the "counterpart" is a preservation of its adaxial side? If this would be the case, the unidentified structure sits right below the lamina of the main pinnule, attached close to the petiole. My mind immediately goes "Aphlebia-like element?!?", but no mention of any such features is made in Laveine and Belhis (2007), the most recent detailed treatment as far as I'm aware... Damage comes to mind as a potential alternative, but the feature on E0066 does not immediately resemble anything in the guide by Labandeira et al. (2007). So I'm a bit stumped, really... Cool specimen!

 

Reference mentioned: J.-P. Laveine and A. Belhis (2007), Frond architecture of the seed-fern Macroneuropteris scheuchzeri, based on Pennsylvanian specimens from the Northern France coal field, Palaeontographica Abt. B, 277, p. 1-41.

[fiddlehead]

The damage like on E0066 is not uncommon. What is unusual in this case is the damage is radiating. I have only seen damage like this occurring on Macnoneuropteris scheuchzeri at Mazon Creek. And in those cases the inflated tube-like structures are parallel and in groups close to the midvein. There they are not as obvious and can go unnoticed. I have not seen anything published on this type of damage. My interpretation is it's feeding damage of some type of piercing and sucking insect. This is only a best guess based on there being around 80 described insects (not counting the cockroaches) at Mazon Creek, and many of the insects are in insect groups which are known to have mouth parts designed for piercing and sucking. And some species are known to have rather long and insertable proboscises. The odd thing to me, is why we don't see even more types of feeding damage. Circumstantial evidence at best. But that's all there is, and rest my case.

 

Hope this helps,

Jack

 

 

[Mark Kmiecik]

3 hours ago, fiddlehead said:

The damage like on E0066 is not uncommon. What is unusual in this case is the damage is radiating. I have only seen damage like this occurring on Macnoneuropteris scheuchzeri at Mazon Creek. And in those cases the inflated tube-like structures are parallel and in groups close to the midvein. There they are not as obvious and can go unnoticed. I have not seen anything published on this type of damage. My interpretation is it's feeding damage of some type of piercing and sucking insect. This is only a best guess based on there being around 80 described insects (not counting the cockroaches) at Mazon Creek, and many of the insects are in insect groups which are known to have mouth parts designed for piercing and sucking. And some species are known to have rather long and insertable proboscises. The odd thing to me, is why we don't see even more types of feeding damage. Circumstantial evidence at best. But that's all there is, and rest my case.

 

Hope this helps,

Jack

 

 

 

Would bacterial, fungal or viral growth/damage be conceivable?