Fossiholic Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 This is one of my favorite fossils that I found at a road cut at Brookville Lake, Indiana. I am guessing the envelope is a form of bryozoan, but since I had never found one wrapping another organism like this, I wasn't sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I think you will find this thread interesting Show Us Your Bryozoan Encrustings 1 Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossiholic Posted August 5, 2013 Author Share Posted August 5, 2013 Thanks . . . for answering my question & pointing out that previous thread. The pics that Herb posted from Kentucky could have been it's twin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I believe you're referring to the fossil posted by squalicorax from KY Link 1 Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmerlin Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 This is one of my favorite fossils that I found at a road cut at Brookville Lake, Indiana. I am guessing the envelope is a form of bryozoan, but since I had never found one wrapping another organism like this, I wasn't sure. thats very nice I like it "A man who stares at a rock must have a lot on his mind... or nothing at all' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Nice specimen. There are two likely bryozoan genera in the Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician): Spatiopora sp. http://strata.uga.edu/cincy/fauna/trepostomatida/Spatiopora.html Atactopora sp. http://strata.uga.edu/cincy/fauna/trepostomatida/Atactopora.html Both known to encrust cephalopods. I would tentatively put it in Spatiopora only because the monticules appear a bit more regular and aligned. If you found it at one of the Brookville cuts it could be narrowed down to a smaller number of possible species based on described ranges (see above links) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkpantherbeekeeper Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 So did they encrust the cephalopods while they were alive? Kinda like barnacles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tatter Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 So did they encrust the cephalopods while they were alive? Kinda like barnacles? Good question. Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Good question. Possibly. Those raised areas (monticules?) appeared to be aligned as if they wouldn't impede movement of the cephalopod. But there are also places were beds of orthocones are all aligned, probably by currents, and the bryozoa could have been responding to that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 This paper has some great examples that demonstrate attachment to living cephalopods by zooecia growth / orientation. Baird, G.C., Brett, C.E., & Frey, R.C. (1989) "Hitchhiking” epizoans on orthoconic cephalopods: preliminary review of the evidence and its implications. Senckenbergiana lethaea 69(5):439-465 LINK This paper also has numerous accounts of bryozoan attachment to trilobites although not as certain on when it occurred. Key Jr, M.M., Schumacher, G.A., Babcock, L.E., Frey, R.C., Heimbrock, W.P., Felton, S.H., & Schumacher, S.A. (2010) Paleoecology of commensal epizoans fouling Flexicalymene (Trilobita) from the Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region, USA. Journal of Paleontology 84(6):1121-1134 LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 If the colony completely enwraps the specimen without obvious interruptions, it would argue well for the encrustation to have occurred during the swimming life of the creature, rather than on an empty shell laying on the bottom. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 The bryozoan pattern is the same on the other side? If not ... then a picture showing the other side would be of interest Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Nice cephalopod apparel. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossiholic Posted August 8, 2013 Author Share Posted August 8, 2013 Sorry folks, I haven't been on here for a bit. It is encrusted on the bottom, but the layer is much much thinner. I would have almost said no, were it not for the "monticules" being able to be faintly seen along the entire length. Again, it is encrusted below, but extremely thin. Thanks everyone for all of the comments, the links, and other info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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