Peace River Bryozoan

[Shellseeker]

I went hunting yesterday. Running out of days, so I take any opportunity.  Walked in over private land with owners permission.  Hunted 5 hours "walking the river upstream".  I like hunting in deep cool water, it is aerobic exercise. 1st location has shallow water and some colorful teeth. We were there 90 minutes. Between different locations , I frequently move finds from my collection bag to a ziploc bag in my backpack.  That was fortunate since I left my collection bag and all the rest of my finds in the bed of Steve's truck. 

In a post 2 weeks ago , @Harry Pristis suggested Bryozoan as a ID for one of my Peace River finds (different location)...

https://www.thefossilforum.com/topic/137631-peace-river-hunting/#comment-1458374

Yesterday I found a similar looking fossil.

I almost tossed it back, but I am glad I did not.  It is mostly round about 60-65 mm in diameter with a lot of attached concretion. I hung onto it because of this feature.  Is this a holdfast, or Bryozoan remains or what ? I read that Bryozoa attach themselves to to anything hard on the sea floor like seashells or coral...

Looks silicified.. Is that druzy ?

 

Thanks for any and all Bryozoan comments.  Is this identifiable to genus ? I hear there are 6000 + possibilities but this one in miocene or later..

 

A couple of other items in the box above...

A Sand dollar or at least a piece of one...

[Danielb]

Nice finds.

[ClearLake]

I'm not sure about your first item, the first couple of pictures look more like coral to me but the last picture could indicate bryozoan.  But admittedly, I'm more of a Paleozoic invert person, so...  Has @digit looked at this?  

 

That Hemipristis tooth is fantastic looking!  Nice find

Edited December 2, 2023 by ClearLake

[digit]

Not really seeing evidence of polyp structure on this one. Silicified sponge might be another possibility. Roger Portell at FLMNH would be the go to person who could likely answer this ID question at 10 paces with one eye closed.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Harry Pristis]

  Well, the choice seems to be coral, bryozoan, or sponge.  Many years ago, Roger Portell suggested to me that they are hydrozoans (typically, soft bodied filter feeders) which, after research, I found unlikely.

  These structures lack features that we might expect in colonial corallites such as septae or tabullae. 

  They are not vascularized as we might expect in sponges.  That is these things don't have the ports for the intake and outflow of water.

  In my estimation, that leaves bryozoans.

  This specimen shows the growth habitus of the colony, engulfing the worm tube.

 

Jack's new find (above) does show attachments like this one:

 

 Sometimes, fine-grained sand fills the orifices of the zooids. 

This is the first example I found.  It could be Late Miocene rather than Early.

 

[Shellseeker]

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

Well, the choice seems to be coral, bryozoan, or sponge.  Many years ago, Roger Portell suggested to me that they are hydrozoans (typically, soft bodied filter vefeeders) which, after research, I found unlikely.

  These structures lack features that we might expect in colonial corallites such as septae or tabullae. 

  They are not vascularized as we might expect in sponges.  That is these things don't have the ports for the intake and outflow of water.

  In my estimation, that leaves bryozoans.

  This specimen shows the growth habitus of the colony, engulfing the worm tube.

 

Impressive,  Harry.. Your expertise and detailed analysis is certainly a building block for the strength and reputation of TFF. I have learned new things in this thread that I did not previously understand. I also like your great photos and closeups.

 

I have hunted the Peace River for 13-14 years and it is hard to understand how I am just now coming across these Bryozoan fossils... Maybe I was just ignoring them because they were only sponges but I do not think so...

I have sent photos / a request for help to Roger.  Maybe he has new discovery/ insights... Certainly I will share any response I receive.

[sixgill pete]

Jack, that is a gorgeous hemipristis. Not to change the subject!

[Shellseeker]

14 minutes ago, sixgill pete said:

Jack, that is a gorgeous hemipristis. Not to change the subject!

Glad to talk about it... So this was 90 minutes at the start of the day,  and about an hour in,  I found the Bryozoan,  but I might not have been there to find it if it was not for this hemi found 20 minutes in.  A good sized upper hemi,  with unique and excellent coloration !!! Note the darker lines flowing out of the root into the blade !!!.. I am forever optimistic while hunting... If I find one great fossil at a location,  maybe there is another in the next sieve.. 

It takes me a little while before I want to move on... so I stayed long enough to find the Bryozoan  because of the gorgeous Hemi... 

[sixgill pete]

7 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

Glad to talk about it... So this was 90 minutes at the start of the day,  and about an hour in,  I found the Bryozoan,  but I might not have been there to find it if it was not for this hemi found 20 minutes in.  A good sized upper hemi,  with unique and excellent coloration !!! Note the darker lines flowing out of the root into the blade !!!.. I am forever optimistic while hunting... If I find one great fossil at a location,  maybe there is another in the next sieve.. 

It takes me a little while before I want to move on... so I stayed long enough to find the Bryozoan  because of the gorgeous Hemi... 

A nice hemi like that is always a trip maker. I love finding perfect ones. I am lucky enough to have found them in Eocene (curvatus) Oligocene (curvatus and serra) and the Miocene / Pliocene. One of my favorite teeth.

[Plantguy]

Hey Jack, the hemi is cool. The invert is really cool!

I like Harry's photos/feedback alot. I too thought about the bryozoan id but Roger has posed the hydrozoan possibility for a few of mine so unless I see perfect unworn zooids that match that bryozoan paper they just put out I'm perplexed. In fairness his ID was only thru my sometimes weak photos and he didnt get to look at them in hand at various angles wtih magnification. Here's one example with the tentative hydrozoan ID...old photo that had the quarter reference...you get the relative size...Yours seems to have more of a branching structure than what I have but maybe not. 

 

 

I'm intrigued by the 2 holes/openings at the apparent ends of yours. Are they circular/oval in nature? Is that a surface feature or does it appear to go within.  wonder if this is a diagnostic feature of whatever it is? 

Looking forward to what Roger thinks. 

 

Again v cool find!

Regards, Chris 

 

[Harry Pristis]

Hmm.  It's a bit surprising that we can't find a mention of these colonies in the literature (correct me if I've missed something).  Is it because these fossils come to light as float?  I'll have to check the Brayfields' guides, but I don't think they included these fossils.  Maybe the FSM invert image files?

[Shellseeker]

9 hours ago, Plantguy said:

I'm intrigued by the 2 holes/openings at the apparent ends of yours. Are they circular/oval in nature? Is that a surface feature or does it appear to go within.  wonder if this is a diagnostic feature of whatever it is? 

Thanks,  Chris for the additional example.  It looks more globular than branching. 

I wondered if the inside edges (TOP) had details like the 'holdfasts" (Bottom).  More photos .. Top

 

Additional photos of the bottom "holdfasts" . There seems to be 5-7 different examples

 

These seem to have variations on the suction cup look.

 

Finally, a cave with a bit of shell surrounded..

[Shellseeker]

9 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

Hmm.  It's a bit surprising that we can't find a mention of these colonies in the literature (correct me if I've missed something).  Is it because these fossils come to light as float?  I'll have to check the Brayfields' guides, but I don't think they included these fossils.  Maybe the FSM invert image files?

I believe one of my strengths is searching the Internet for reference documents and similar photos. Like you , I am finding almost nothing that seems related or similar..

[Shellseeker]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:16 PM, Shellseeker said:

I have sent photos / a request for help to Roger.  Maybe he has new discovery/ insights... Certainly I will share any response I receive.

Roger responded.

Quote

Most likely bryozoans. However, the zooids need to be SEM’ed in order to ID and these, like most of the Peace River specimens are silicified.

 

Cheers, Roger

I have enormous respect for Roger. I believe every word in these 2 sentences. Roger has expertise in this space.

and I am just now learning .

 

So, relative to my 2 finds under discussion:

1) Not "These are Bryozoans"   but "Most likely bryozoans."

2) In order to identify as Bryozoans and then as which species of Bryozoan, the zooids from these finds would have to be scanned using tools like a Scanning Electron Microscope. 

3) Most Peace River fossils that look like this have been silicified, and somehow that makes SEM incapable of identifying.

 

 

Am I interpreting correctly ?  @Harry Pristis @ClearLake @Plantguy @digit

[ClearLake]

2 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

Am I interpreting correctly ?

1. Probably a good interpretation

2. Bryozoans generally need thin sectioned or SEM'd for specific ID

3. I don't know this, not an SEM person.

[Harry Pristis]

1 hour ago, Shellseeker said:

3) Most Peace River fossils that look like this have been silicified, and somehow that makes SEM incapable of identifying.

I think you've mis-interpreted.  

What does a scanning electron microscope allow you to see?

This technique allows you to see the surface of just about any sample, from industrial metals to geological samples to biological specimens like spores, insects, and cells.

[Andúril Flame of the West]

I was quite intrigued to see SEM analysis come up on TFF as I've had the pleasure to work with SEM before. As @Harry Pristis clarified, a wide variety of materials can be viewed under a Scanning Electron Microscope. However, to visualize samples they must be coated with a conductive material. Oftentimes samples are coated with an incredibly thin layer of gold through sputter coating, though a number of other highly conductive metals can also be used. 

 

When a sample is viewed under a conventional microscope, the lenses are used to focus visible light rays on the sample to produce the images. A scanning electron microscope substitutes visible light rays for a beam of electrons which are directed at the sample. The electrons interact with the sample (the conductive coating is necessary for proper interaction to occur) and sensors positioned in the microscope create images based on reflected electrons. SEM is often used to capture very fine details or to observe objects that are on the order of nanometers such as electrospun fibers. Objects at this scale cannot be observed under a light microscope since many of the objects are smaller than the wavelength of light. 

 

For a bit of fun, here are a few photographs of a Striatolamia sp. specimen from the Aquia formation that I took under the SEM:

 

 

A complete view of the tooth under low magnification

 

 

An image of the blade under very high magnification

 

 

A highly magnified image of the contact between the blade and the root with a measurement for scale. 

 

 

A very zoomed in view of the top portion of the root. Magnification to this extent would not be attainable using a conventional microscope. 

 

 

[Shellseeker]

10 hours ago, Andúril Flame of the West said:

When a sample is viewed under a conventional microscope, the lenses are used to focus visible light rays on the sample to produce the images. A scanning electron microscope substitutes visible light rays for a beam of electrons which are directed at the sample. The electrons interact with the sample (the conductive coating is necessary for proper interaction to occur) and sensors positioned in the microscope create images based on reflected electrons. SEM is often used to capture very fine details or to observe objects that are on the order of nanometers such as electrospun fibers. Objects at this scale cannot be observed under a light microscope since many of the objects are smaller than the wavelength of light. 

 

Very Informative  !!! You have true expertise.  Thanks for sharing it with me.

This morning I decided to read a little and collect some photos to aid in my education...

So, basically if I could get a SEM photo of the surface of my bryozoan at a couple of 100 micro_meters , it might look like SEM_image of calcified Autozooids of Microparella_discors_Colony _(Cheilostomatida_marine).  B in the next photo.  and I would then have identified the fossil.  Just WOW !!!!

[westcoast]

I've enjoyed following this discussion, I just want to throw in another possibility...stromatolite.

[Balance]

I’m So lost but equally as interested. What a weird hobby this is.  

 

Loving this. 
 

Jp
 

 

[Shellseeker]

5 hours ago, westcoast said:

I've enjoyed following this discussion, I just want to throw in another possibility...stromatolite.

 

Thank you !   THANK you !   

Got me back to something I was asking about Bryozoans

On 12/2/2023 at 9:42 AM, Shellseeker said:

I hung onto it because of this feature.  Is this a holdfast, or Bryozoan remains or what ? I read that Bryozoa attach themselves to to anything hard on the sea floor like seashells or coral...

Do Bryozoan Colonies attach them to anything hard on the seafloor or Do they create their own Holdfasts ?  I asked Roger this question also, but no response on that topic. Generally on TFF as in all human communities a lack of response to a direct question indicates a lack of knowledge on the topic.

Stromatolites seem to create their own holdfasts...

 

[digit]

7 hours ago, westcoast said:

I've enjoyed following this discussion, I just want to throw in another possibility...stromatolite.

I can see why you suggested this with the laminar texture on this item. Unfortunately, stromatolites are a bit too old of a fossil to be showing up in Florida. The oldest surface formations we have here in this state go back only to the Eocene. We have Cretaceous deposits in Florida but they are several thousand feet below the surface--kinda puts a kink in fossil hunting for ammonites in Florida.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Harry Pristis]

2 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

I asked Roger this question also, but no response on that topic. Generally on TFF as in all human communities a lack of response to a direct question indicates a lack of knowledge on the topic.

  I think this is a mis-perception, Jack.  A professional paleontologist ("ProPals" as I call them) can be helpful when a question fits his or her own agenda.  They also can be disinterested, they can be lazy, they can be busy . . . they are human.  

  It is a neophyte mistake to think the ProPal you encounter is a superior being, with god-like knowledge to dispense.  A PhD. is not one step short of a halo.  ProPals make mistakes frequently -- a major part of their job is to correct the faulty inferences of other ProPals.  Just look at any species account that includes a synonymy.

  And, ProPals can exhibit both virtues and faults in their working relationships.  They are just like you and me . . . human. 

[westcoast]

Stromatolites exist today, so not too old.

[Family Fun]

Always love when Jack post something to identify.  I learn something new and realize just how much I don’t know.