xonenine Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 it is an interesting subject, I tried to find a photo of any of these also, no luck, but an interesting reference in this PDF as to locale of Evactinostella crucialis at any rate... http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/acreage_releases/201305/GSDREC_2011_14.pdf 1 "Your serpent of Egypt is bred now of your mud by the operation of your sun; so is your crocodile." Lepidus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Looking forward to seeing the final ID's on these. Very nice finds! Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestOz64 Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Thank you xonenine, that PDF is very imformative for my area. This is what they have listed "foraminifera, bryozoans, brachiopods, bivalves, ammonoids, gastropods, conulariids, trilobites, crinoids, and trace fossils". So at least now I have a starting point when trying to identify any finds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think we have our answer for this thing! Well done, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliosaur Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Very cool starfish fossil!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 ...A better explanation that I think Missourian has lead us to is that this is a bryozoan, possibly Evactinopora. The internal features of this fossil is similar to this one:http://www.lakeneosho.org/Evactinopora/Gallery15.htmllakeneoshoimage.jpg Evactinopora.JPG Do Evactinopora get that large (10cm x 12cm)? "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...
Scylla Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Lovely fossil. I like starfish fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Those Evinactopora are really perverse, they do look so much like starfish (more properly, sea stars as they are not fish). That being said, could we get a closeup of the smaller specimen (above and to the right of the bigger specimen) in your first photo? That one still has more of a sea star look to me, worth a closer look. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 starfish (more properly, sea stars as they are not fish). Jellyfish aren't really fish either, so what's the other name for them, sea jellies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archimedes Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 very nice thanks for posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Well, I don't think I could get my name for them past the filters on this site. At least, not my name for the stinging ones. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Do Evactinopora get that large (10cm x 12cm)? I can't find size information for the Austalian ones but from the MGS volume 5 Paleontology of Missouri 1894, E. Grandis is described as measuring from 6 to 10 centimeters across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHunter Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Wow great fossil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestOz64 Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Hi Don...here is the photo you requested, this fossil is only a tiny one, roughly 1.5cm x 1.5cm. Also have included another fossil I thought might interest you, this one is 4.5cm x 5cm....Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Hi Don...here is the photo you requested, this fossil is only a tiny one, roughly 1.5cm x 1.5cm. Also have included another fossil I thought might interest you, this one is 4.5cm x 5cm....Cheers! Those are good photos. They show the internal structure clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old bones Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 These sea stars blow me away! They are so incredibly preserved, and what terrific photos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Hi Don...here is the photo you requested, this fossil is only a tiny one, roughly 1.5cm x 1.5cm. Also have included another fossil I thought might interest you, this one is 4.5cm x 5cm....Cheers! Thanks. Seen closer up, I think it's another Evactinopora, unfortunately. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Great news as another Australian echinoderm specialist has responded to assist with an ID on the starfish fossil. It looks like the earlier report of Palaester from another Australian specialist might be confirmed as well. This discovery is quite significant and should be included in an upcoming monograph that has been in the works since the 1980s. If in fact it is a new species, perhaps it will be named in your honor! Contact Info: DR PETER JELL WEBSITE Congrats again on your great find! I am grateful for the opportunity to see the starfish in the image attached to your email. Identification of the specimen is difficult because of the degree of weathering of the carbonate skeleton in the carbonate matrix. We had the same problem with crinoids we collected in the Callytharra Limestone in the Kennedy Range –many of them remain unidentifiable and even those we did figure in the literature are rarely identified to species level. Their prolonged exposure to weathering on carbonate surfaces has rendered most complex animals in the cleaner limestones mostly unidentifiable. First of all, we are looking down on the dorsal surface of the starfish, i.e. the mouth was down beneath the specimen as we look at it. This is deduced from the pitting on the two arms running left and right from the centre. These pits are almost certainly where the bases of spines articulated and the spines would have been on the upper surface. The pits are on the large adambulacral plates and therefore must be dorsal. The line of matrix that you can see down the centre line of each arm is the ambulacral groove, exposed where the upper half of the arm has been weathered off. The separated arm to the left of the whole animal shows this well –it has the ambulacral groove exposed to the left but to the right, presumably where weathering is to lesser extent, the upper plates of the arm conceal the groove. So I conclude that the dorsal plates of the central disc are also weathered away and I am not exactly sure what we are looking at in that central disc area. The lines suggesting plate orientation there do not resemble any known starfish and I am guessing they are weathering products. I would need to look carefully at the specimen to learn any more about that part of the skeleton. My first guess without having seen the detail of the specimen is that it may be related to Palaeaster stutchburii Etheridge, 1892 from the Permian in the Sydney Basin. It had spines covering the entire dorsal surface in about the same density as the pits on your specimen. The wide plates that you see in two columns along each arm also match the adambulacrals in Etheridge’s species. I am afraid I can do little more than this from the photograph. I should let you know that I am part way into a large work on Australian fossil asterozoans (starfish and brittlestars). This is an extensive study that I began in the early 1980s and has progressed by accumulation of specimens ever since. There are more than 100 species to deal with and it will be a few more years before it is complete. I have a number of Permian species from both Western and eastern Australia included in the study. I would be very interested to see your specimen and if I can discern more details would like to be able to include it in the larger study. However, you may have other plans, with which I would not want to interfere. Nevertheless I would be interested to know what plans you may have for the specimen so that I can judge if it is feasible to include it as a significant record of our fossil heritage. I hope this is of some help to you and look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes Peter Jell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 To avoid any confusion, this is the photo that Dr. Jell referenced in the description in the previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 To avoid any confusion, this is the photo that Dr. Jell referenced in the description in the previous post. I'm sure if Dr. Jell saw all the photos his conclusion would be quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'm sure if Dr. Jell saw all the photos his conclusion would be quite different. The other photos could certainly be something else, but Dr. Jell is perfectly capable of evaluating the photo that was sent. The detailed analysis of morphological and preservational features is quite a thorough and well reasoned conclusion. Even assuming the other fossils are Evactinopora, are you suggesting that means they must all be Evactinopora? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The other photos could certainly be something else, but Dr. Jell is perfectly capable of evaluating the photo that was sent. The detailed analysis of morphological and preservational features is quite a thorough and well reasoned conclusion. Even assuming the other fossils are Evactinopora, are you suggesting that means they must all be Evactinopora? I'm no expert and far be it from me to contradict those that are but to me they all look the same too.. If I were told one was an Evact I would carry on IDing the rest as Evacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm no expert and far be it from me to contradict those that are but to me they all look the same too.. If I were told one was an Evact I would carry on IDing the rest as Evacts. No one with any actual expertise on the subject has confirmed anything of the sort. The only authoritative unanimity is the consensus of three Australian paleontologists saying that the original posted image is a starfish. Just by coincidence, two of those specialists independently arrived at the genus Palaeaster. I do realize that back at post number 29 you declared this mystery solved, but additional information from the top Australian echinoderm expert in the world, certainly warrants our full attention and consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 No one with any actual expertise on the subject has confirmed anything of the sort. The only authoritative unanimity is the consensus of three Australian paleontologists saying that the original posted image is a starfish. Just by coincidence, two of those specialists independently arrived at the genus Palaeaster. I do realize that back at post number 29 you declared this mystery solved, but additional information from the top Australian echinoderm expert in the world, certainly warrants our full attention and consideration. It seemed pretty convincing at the time, but I agree with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The detailed analysis of morphological and preservational features is quite a thorough and well reasoned conclusion. Even assuming the other fossils are Evactinopora, are you suggesting that means they must all be Evactinopora? I have no doubt they are all Evactinopora. Fossil seastar classification is based on the shape and position of the various plates, particularly the ambulacral, oral and marginal plates. The fossil in the first post does not have these features. It is possible that calcite overgrowth has covered these features up but it would also have filled all pores. The fossil in the first post is covered in pores. If the experts identified this as Palaeaster, they must be using age and basic outline to identify this. If you compare the basic outline with other examples of Palaeaster you will see there is not much in common. The arms of the fossil in the first post are very long and thin. They resemble the arms of a brittle star more than a seastar. The only features visible on the first fossil are the canal running down each arm and the many pores. The other fossils in this thread share this feature. The other fossils are clearly bryozoans. I would have to conclude that the first fossil is also a bryozoan. Here are some other examples of Palaeaster to compare with the fossil in the first post: The fossil in the first post is much more similar to this: 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