Fossils from Spain

[Coldcreation]

Hello all,

This particular group of fossils was found deep underneath layers of shale at the lowest section of a hill, which leads me to believe the creatures that left these imprints are over 450 million years old. From the fossil record of this location it had previously been determined (by geologist studying the area) that these rocks are Ordovician and Silurian in origin (Paleozoico, Primaria).

Figure 1. Graptolites from Alto Tajo Spain

This particular example is the largest (the foot is size 11 wide , so the shale is about 2 feet in length), most structurally complex, specimen I have found in this strata. I was wondering just how this fossil compares to others of the same era. I haven't seen anything like it online. Would anyone have anything to compare this with?

Below is an example of some life-form that thrived during the same epoch. I found several more complete specimens with the same characteristic segments, though much smaller. The more complete fossils appear to be primitive fish, as do the smaller examples. I have not seen any jaw structure or armor-plated heads.

I was curious to see if anyone could identify this fossil from the fragment that is observed here:

Figure 2. Shale stone with graptolites and a segmented structure.

This is one part of the actual fossil. I also have the other half of it (the flip side, concave, curved inward like the inner surface of a sphere. This section of the fossil is convex, with a surface that bulges outward) and its extension into another another rock. The full specimen (if indeed it is complete) measures about 12 inches long and 2 1/2 in. wide. I thought it might be a fish, though I am not sure. Some of these forms have what looks like a simple eye, oblong and protruding slightly. Usually these structures (whatever they are) taper off to a point, i.e., there is no clearly defined tail protrusion, fins or flaps (excuse the terminology).

In the same strata are also found what look like sponges (or Porifera) with organic material still intact. Small shells that look like Zygospira are also present, though rare.

I look forward to any views and opinions on these two plates.

PS. In this same thread I will post other fossils found near this shale sight, but dating closer to 210-160 Ma ago (e.g., ammonites).

[Guest solius symbiosus]

There must be a fairly large discontinuity going from the Sil. to the Triassic. Post some pics please... I love structure.

[Coldcreation]

There must be a fairly large discontinuity going from the Sil. to the Triassic. Post some pics please... I love structure.

Yes, there is quite a discontinuity.

The Triassic fossils are found several kilometers from the site where the above fossils were found.

I would like to discuss the above pix first (before posting the triassic elements), in order to proceed chronologically if at all possible.

Do you have any idea as to what could be fossilized in the second photo?

[MOROPUS]

I think a detail zoom picture of the first one-showing the thecas- will provide me the oportunity to id it.

Nevetheless, in the second pic, you point that weird fossil, but in the same rock , just up that strange thing, there is a graptolite I can Id.Is the quite small corcscrew form.It could be a Spirograptus Turriculatus, from the LLandoviensean (first part of the Silurian).Hope it helps!

By the way, if you think you`ve found armored fishes, this would be a extremely rare find, because there is no localities in the whole Spain with them.Post a pic and we will see.Perhaps you can become famous by naming new species! After, If you consider to be fossil fish, I recommend you to take them to the nearest museum, university or Geological institution.If you don`t find one, I can help you.VERY GOOD CATCH!

[Auspex]

I'm not too sure about finely segmented fish...

[Coldcreation]

I think a detail zoom picture of the first one-showing the thecas- will provide me the oportunity to id it.

Nevetheless, in the second pic, you point that weird fossil, but in the same rock , just up that strange thing, there is a graptolite I can Id.Is the quite small corcscrew form.It could be a Spirograptus Turriculatus, from the LLandoviensean (first part of the Silurian).Hope it helps!

By the way, if you think you`ve found armored fishes, this would be a extremely rare find, because there is no localities in the whole Spain with them.Post a pic and we will see.Perhaps you can become famous by naming new species! After, If you consider to be fossil fish, I recommend you to take them to the nearest museum, university or Geological institution.If you don`t find one, I can help you.VERY GOOD CATCH!

Thank you for the ID of Spirograptus Turriculatus. I actually have some very fine examples of those on other stones. I was really more interested in an ID of the segmented (or ridged) structure of Fig. 2.

As far as armored fish: I have not found any. All that emerges from the shale are these segmented life-forms that resemble fish, but without fins and without a pronounced (or fanning) tail shape. Some seem to taper off to a point, while others seem not to taper off. See other examples below:

Figure 3. Two segmented (fish-like?) Ordovician fossils in shale (circa 450 Myrs old).

One of these figures tapers off (the smaller one) while the other not (similarly to the object in Figure 2 above). Note, the segments (if indeed that's what they are) appear closer together in the larger object and more spaced in the smaller.

CC

[Guest Nicholas]

Cephalopod of some sort perhaps?

[Guest solius symbiosus]

^^That is what I was thinking.

[Guest Nicholas]

^^That is what I was thinking.

I was thinking to myself that I was going to sound like an idiot for suggesting it, at least if I go down I'm taking someone intelligent with me!

[Coldcreation]

I remain sceptical about the cephalopod attribution.

I havn't seen any cephalopod fossils from that era that could possibly compare morphologically.

In this link however; PALAEOZOIC FISH: ANASPIDS, there appear to be several specimens that do compare morphologically (at least in part) to the specimen in Figure 2 above.

This attribution could explain why I have found no head shields on any of the fossils.

This example of Birkenia elegans from the Birkenhead Burn locality bares some similarity to the features of the example in Fig. 2 as well.

Any thoughts?

In the mean time I will see if I have any other examples where more detail can be observed...

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I've seen some photographs of Geisonoceras sp(?) that have close "bands" like that. Too, some of the Hyolithids got rather large. If these are being found in Ord sediments, that would rule out anaspids as they didn't evolve until the Silurian.

[Coldcreation]

I've seen some photographs of Geisonoceras sp(?) that have close "bands" like that. Too, some of the Hyolithids got rather large. If these are being found in Ord sediments, that would rule out anaspids as they didn't evolve until the Silurian.

Good point. The object in the upper right of Fig 3 looks like Geisonoceras.

Here is an 'artists' rendition of Geisonoceras: Orthocerida (= Michelinocerida), Geisonoceras rivulae Haytt, 1884, Middle Ordovician to Late Devonian: North America, Russia, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Ordovician of the Russian and Siberian platforms and Bohemia; Ordovician-Devonian of Asia and North America.

Here is another link with some fine examples (pdf). Revision of Middle Ordovician orthoceratacean nautiloids from Baltoscandia.

A couple points: the fossil represented in Fig. 2 (see the opening post) doesn't seem to have a narrow, cylindrical, central siphuncle, as would the Geisonocera pictured in the link(s) above.

Spain is not mentioned in the list of locations where Geisonoceras have been found.

Though the above may not rule out Geisonoceras, I don't see how Geisonoceras could be ruled in.

Too, anaspids are typically restricted to the Silurian, as you mention, but some forms occur in the Late Devonian, such as the most primitive anaspids, Pharyngolepis.

In this book (the best I've seen on the topic), pages 342 and 345, there are illustration of interest, with good comparisons: The Fossil Book.

Though Amphioxids were generally small (about two inches) there are some striking similarities with the fossil of Fig. 2.

Arandaspis prionotolepis, an early jawless fish of the Middle Ordovician (see p. 345) also presents remarkable features of the type shown in Fig 2 of the OP (at least in part).

I still have to do some research on ostracoderms, anglospis cyathospid (early Devonian, Europe), arandaspis prionotopis, amphioxus, amphioxids, anatolepis, euconodonta, astrospis, thelodonts, cephalaspidomorphs, coelolepids, and spammosteid.

I have not yet been able to find good Hyolithids specimens to make a reasonable attribution, but the possibility seems real. Thanks for that.

Here, on page 182 of The Fossil Book Lecathylus gregarius appears similar, though I think it is also Silurian. Maybe it has a precursor.

I hadn't suspected it would be so difficult to ID the fossil of Fig 2 above...

[Guest geofossiles]

very nice piece!

[Guest solius symbiosus]

A couple points: the fossil represented in Fig. 2 (see the opening post) doesn't seem to have a narrow, cylindrical, central siphuncle, as would the Geisonocera pictured in the link(s) above.

The siphuncle is an internal structure. On yours, if it is a cephalopod, what is preserved is the outermost part of the chamber.

[Coldcreation]

The siphuncle is an internal structure. On yours, if it is a cephalopod, what is preserved is the outermost part of the chamber.

Good point.

There are other cephalopod fossils present in the shale at that site in Alto Tajo, and in the same layers.

They are exceedingly well preserved. On the other hand, if the object in Fig. 2 is a cephalopod it appears poorly preserved.

This leads me to believe that the specimen observed may have had soft body tissue (with a catrilage skeleton). If indeed that is the case, then the speciman is remarkably well preserved.

Question: what is it that makes you feel it is not a jawless fish of some sort?

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I'm not saying it isn't, but is the formation known for soft body preservation, and have vertebrates been found there? Ordovician vertebrates are exceedingly rare, as is soft body preservation, though it does happen. I hunted a formation known for it's execptional preservation about a month ago.

[Coldcreation]

I'm not saying it isn't, but is the formation known for soft body preservation, and have vertebrates been found there? Ordovician vertebrates are exceedingly rare, as is soft body preservation, though it does happen. I hunted a formation known for it's execptional preservation about a month ago.

Again, as mentioned in the OP, this shale stone site has been attributed to the Ordovician and Silurian Epochs according to geologists that have studies the site. I read in the local literature that the graptolites here are dated around 450 Mya old. So I assume (that's all I can do for now) that other fossils found here must be Ordovician and/or Silurian.

I do not know if formation is known for soft body preservation.

I do not know if vertebrates have been found here.

At the same time, I have not seen much evidence of digging. It would seem (except for a road that cuts through part of the site) that very little activity has taken place here.

If what I have found are vertebrates I can only guess that they are Late Ordovician or Early Silurian (or even Middle perhaps), i.e., if they are vertebrates they may not be Ordovician, but in fact Silurian.

I cannot, therefor, rule out a vertebrate fossil on the grounds that few are known (or that they are exceedingly rare) from Ordovician.

There exists very little literature (that I could find) related to the shale sites in the Alto Tajo region of Spain. That, plus the absence of any digging activity (except for my own) leads me to believe the site is pretty much virgin.

In my next couple of posts I will attach some more photos of some fossils found at this formation that have similar characteristics to the fossil in Figure 2 (along with more examples of the Figure 2 fossil).

PS. Did you find anything of interest in the formation known for it's execptional preservation about a month ago?

[Guest solius symbiosus]

PS. Did you find anything of interest in the formation known for it's execptional preservation about a month ago?

Probably, but I haven't prepped anything out. Here is a thread about the trip:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2624

[MOROPUS]

I found in one of my books, a similarity with the Endoceras cephalopod group. They become really big, and they range from Ordovician to Permian.That may suit. Try to contact Trilospain; he have a lot of knowledge of the spanish paleozoic.

[Coldcreation]

Probably, but I haven't prepped anything out. Here is a thread about the trip:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2624

Wow. That formation looks very similar to Alto Tajo site. Nice fossils. Did you actually go fossil hunting the next day after your accident?

The following photo is an alternative image of the fossil in Figure 2 (in the opening post). Both sides of the stone are present.

Fig 4. A fossil present in shale stone dated Late Ordovician or Silurian (Alto Tajo Spain)

The fossil is located on either side of the central yellow section.

Here is another view of the same fossil:

Fig 5. A fossil present in shale stone dated Late Ordovician or Silurian (Alto Tajo Spain)

Here is yet again an alternative view of the same fossil (one of four pieces).

Fig 6. A fossil present in shale stone dated Late Ordovician or Silurian (Alto Tajo Spain)

Does anyone have any knowledge as to what this could be (other than a cephalopod: an attribution for which I remain sceptical)?

In the next posts I will attach several other fossils found in the same formation.

[MOROPUS]

I`m still thinking on some distorted Endoceratii cephalopod.The third pic you can see the cylindrical form...

Please, ask trilospain.He is a fan of the Spanish paleozoic; trust in him! If he doesn`t have a clue , then....

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Wow. That formation looks very similar to Alto Tajo site. Nice fossils.

I thought the same thing, but it is probably coincidental as they were separated by the Iapetus Ocean.

Did you actually go fossil hunting the next day after your accident?

We actually went straight to an out crop from the hospital, but the "hike" was the next day.

[MOROPUS]

I thought the same thing, but it is probably coincidental as they were separated by the Iapetus Ocean.

We actually went straight to an out crop from the hospital, but the "hike" was the next day.

No, no it`s not coincidental! Here in Spain there are aswell some "Endoceras" type fossil described, specially around the place were he is , the northwest region (Picos de Europa range) and the Pirinee Mountains.

[Coldcreation]

I found in one of my books, a similarity with the Endoceras cephalopod group. They become really big, and they range from Ordovician to Permian.That may suit. Try to contact Trilospain; he have a lot of knowledge of the spanish paleozoic.

Thanks for this.

However, if you look at the specimen in this link, you will find very little similarity with the fossil presented in this thread.

Do you have a link with something similar?

[Coldcreation]

These fossils were found in the same formation:

Fig 7. Fossil from Alto Tajo Spain in Shale Stone (Ordovician or Silurian in origin)

Fig 8. Fossil from Alto Tajo Spain in Shale Stone Formation (Ordovician or Silurian in origin)

Though it may not be the same creature as the fossil here in question, the above fossil (two different views) does look like a brachiopod of the type mentioned above.

Fig 9. Fossil from Alto Tajo Spain in Shale Stone Formation (Ordovician or Silurian in origin)

Fig 10. Fossil from Alto Tajo Spain in Shale Stone Formation (Ordovician or Silurian)

The above fossil appears more fish-like the the two previous fossils.

So too does this one:

Fig 11. Fossil from Alto Tajo Spain in Shale Stone Formation (Ordovician or Silurian)

Any comments would be appreciated...