BobWill Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) Found this in Haskell County Oklahoma. It's Middle Pennsylvanian, Des Moinesian Series, Savanna Formation. Size: 35mm This blurry view shows how the fossil curves down on both sides. Here are some other common fossils from this site that I was able to identify. Edited August 11, 2014 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Calamites rhizome, me thinks. "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...
SheLovesFossils Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Very nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 Thanks and thanks for the ID Auspex. That was my first guess but I couldn't find pictures of any with such a short inter-nodal length compared to the width. I'm sure there's a lot of variation to account for that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Intriguing fossil. Could be Calamites, for there are species with very short internodes, but it is not really like any I have seen. On the other hand, can't come up with any alternatives... I'll go through the plates of Kidston and Jongmans (1915-1917) when I have time to see if there is a match. On the photo, the ribs seem to be slightly off-parallel, which leads me to wonder: do you have any indications there could be remnants of the leaf-whorls on the surface? Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 I thought the ribs seemed odd but these are the first plant fossils I've collected so I have little for making comparisons. I see nothing that looks like part of a leaf whorl on this piece but I found some at this site. They are barely visible however and I'm having trouble taking usable photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwise Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 another great find by Bob...... Thanks for your help in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Interesting finds, Bob! Thanks for posting them. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) I showed this to a paleo-botanist at the Dallas Paleo Society meeting last night. It was outside her specialty but her suggestion was that it had a "ferny" look to it. I've given that some thought and now I wonder if she meant it could be over-lapping fern leaves. That wouldn't explain the way it curves downward at the edges so maybe she was talking about material at the base of ancient ferns. As I said before I have no experience with fossil plants or even present-day ferns for that matter so it's still a mystery to me. Edited August 18, 2014 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 LINK1 (scroll down to Fig. 11) LINK2 1 "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...
BobWill Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 Once again, you were right all along. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) LINK1 (scroll down to Fig. 11) As far as you can tell from a photograph, I would argue that Figure 11 is not Calamites rhizome. The large, round-oval structures forming the node (main feature) are too large compared to the main stem and too closely spaced to be root scars. More likely, the feature is a verticil (whorl) of branch scars, making the specimen figured as Figure 11 some form of Calamites subgenus Calamitina, such as Calamites goeppertii (1, 2, 3), Calamites sachsei, Calamites verticillatus, etc., which all represent sub-aerial parts of the plant. Note that, depending on preservation, the ribs of the nodes can appear more or less "weathered-out", making the general appearance quite variable. The specimen presented for identification does not show a characteristic node, making it very difficult to link this specimen to any of the species above. Edited August 15, 2014 by paleoflor 4 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Could it be decorticated, and might this account for the textural differences? "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...
dragonsfly Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Nice nice ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 As far as you can tell from a photograph, I would argue that Figure 11 is not Calamites rhizome. The large, round-oval structures forming the node (main feature) are too large compared to the main stem and too closely spaced to be root scars. More likely, the feature is a verticil (whorl) of branch scars, making the specimen figured as Figure 11 some form of Calamites subgenus Calamitina, such as Calamites goeppertii (1, 2, 3), Calamites sachsei, Calamites verticillatus, etc., which all represent sub-aerial parts of the plant. Note that, depending on preservation, the ribs of the nodes can appear more or less "weathered-out", making the general appearance quite variable. The specimen presented for identification does not show a characteristic node, making it very difficult to link this specimen to any of the species above. Hey Bob, cool find! Tim, was wondering if this might be one of the calamite cones...Macrostachya?...what do you think? Here's one that I have that is similar in preservation. Regards, Chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted August 18, 2014 Author Share Posted August 18, 2014 Wow Chris! I think that's it. That's probably what was pictured in the link Auspex found if Paleoflor was right about it being misidentified. So, now you only have to explain to a fauna guy what's meant by cone in this context. A seedpod like a pinecone or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Interesting discussion. Funnily enough I was thinking cone the whole way down the scroll, but since I'm no expert in this field I was thinking I'll just keep my mouth shut...oops...now I've gone out on a limb... Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleoflor Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 (...) this might be one of the calamite cones...Macrostachya?...what do you think? Here's one that I have that is similar in preservation.(...) @ Plantguy: Never seen a three-dimensionally preserved cone like that! Beautiful. And yes, it does look very similar to the specimen considered here. I think you solved the mystery here, Chris. Do you have any additional information on the preservation, identification, etc.? The only calamite cones of Macrostachya I have seen before are two-dimensional, like these. Again, kudos with this identification. @ Bobwill: "cone" refers to "spore cone", or strobilus. Some more information on calamite cones can be found here. 2 Searching for green in the dark grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 @ Plantguy: Never seen a three-dimensionally preserved cone like that! Beautiful. And yes, it does look very similar to the specimen considered here. I think you solved the mystery here, Chris. Do you have any additional information on the preservation, identification, etc.? The only calamite cones of Macrostachya I have seen before are two-dimensional, like these. Again, kudos with this identification. @ Bobwill: "cone" refers to "spore cone", or strobilus. Some more information on calamite cones can be found here. Hey Tim, yep this is a neat specimen. It came from a Paleontology instructor's collection I acquired upon his passing. Sadly that specimen's provenance was all gone/lost when it was given to me--just had the Macrostachya label. Some of the other things from that collection are special in their own right even though the reservation isnt as stunning. Just inheriting it from a former collector/educator adds to its specialness. Bob, glad Tim explained the term. Finding things that aren't completely flattened are pretty neat! Nice! Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 Thanks Tim and Chris. It's very tempting to see if this thing continues around to the other side. It disappears beneath the matrix on both edges but it's pretty crumbly. Chris, is yours showing anything on the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddlehead Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 The specimen is a Macrostachya thompsonii, a large cone of an unknown sphenopsid. The only possible doubt is the species name, thompsonii and is the most common species in North America and the only known found at Mazon Creek. The only way to be certain is to examine the spores. I would assume this locality is from a area which was mined for the Henryetta Coal, if so it has fossil flora is equivalent to Mazon Creek, See https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/21841 Attached is a Mazon Creek example housed at The Field Museum the scale bar is 2 cm. Hope this helps, Jack 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 MacroPP27962.jpg The specimen is a Macrostachya thompsonii, a large cone of an unknown sphenopsid. The only possible doubt is the species name, thompsonii and is the most common species in North America and the only known found at Mazon Creek. The only way to be certain is to examine the spores. I would assume this locality is from a area which was mined for the Henryetta Coal, if so it has fossil flora is equivalent to Mazon Creek, See https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/21841 Attached is a Mazon Creek example housed at The Field Museum the scale bar is 2 cm. Hope this helps, Jack Jack, looks like you all have been very busy. What a doc and full of wonderful specimens and color photos! Thanks for providing the link. Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plantguy Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Thanks Tim and Chris. It's very tempting to see if this thing continues around to the other side. It disappears beneath the matrix on both edges but it's pretty crumbly. Chris, is yours showing anything on the back? Hi Bob, missed this post earlier. Yep I understand the temptation. My specimen is currently under an Plio Pleistocene invertebrate layer in the garage. Once I ID and move and organize that stuff I'll be able to get to the Paleozoic material beneath and I'll snap a shot of the back...has similar but less spectacular features as I recall. I'm not complaining just have run into a wealth of material and brought it home...we are very very fortunate down here...you almost dig a hole and you find something...may not be spectacular but a crumb of something.... Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Chris, no need to dig it out. Your description if fine. I think I'll leave mine as is (intact so far). Thanks and thanks to Jack too BobW Edited October 12, 2014 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) MacroPP27962.jpg I would assume this locality is from a area which was mined for the Henryetta Coal, Hope this helps, Jack Sorry Jack, I just noticed this part of your post. If you mean my fossil, It's from a road cut in Haskell County. I don't know if coal has been mined there. I saw a thin band of coal but mostly alternating layers of sandstone and shale. Edited October 12, 2014 by BobWill 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