Northeast Ohio 10-11 Different leaf?

[saysac]

Small specimen but looks a little different than previous ones.

[Fossildude19]

I think I've seen finds of yours similar to this, no??

Maybe Paul can take a look at this..

Very nice plant, no matter what, Sherry.

Regards,

[Stocksdale]

Yes, this is the same (the currently-called Danaeites). Nice detail of the venation.

[Fossildude19]

Yes, this is the same (the currently-called Danaeites). Nice detail of the venation.

Paul,

Do you have a reference pic or drawing for Danaeites?

It doesn't appear similar to the one in Lesqueraux.

Regards,

[Stocksdale]

I agree somewhat. I don't think "Danaeites" will be the right name for Sherry's fossils in the end. (Sherry don't make engraved labels yet )

I've been proposing that Newberry and Lesquereux had fragments of something that may have matched what Sherry has. Or was closely related. But since they only had small pieces, their analysis was incorrect. Newberry called the fossils "Alethopteris macrophylla." Then, Lesquereux found more fossils that match. He chose to rename the species "Danaeites macrophyllum."

In my opinion, whatever this is, it should be removed from the "Danaeites" genus. Perhaps with a new genus erected. Other fossils called "Danaeites" are clearly Marattialean ferns that resemble Pecopterids. These are "Danaeites emersonii" and "Danaeites rigida".

I think Sherry's fossils are clearly not ferns and look nothing like the other "Danaeites". So, we've been using the term "Danaeites" in a temporary placeholder type of way. Does that make sense?

Edited October 12, 2015 by Stocksdale

[Fossildude19]

I agree somewhat. I don't think "Danaeites" will be the right name for Sherry's fossils in the end. (Sherry don't make engraved labels yet )

I've been proposing that Newberry (in 1873) and Lesquereux (in 1879) had fragments of something that may have matched what Sherry has. Or was closely related. But since they only had small pieces, their analysis was incorrect. Newberry called the fossils "Alethopteris macrophylla." Then, Lesquereux found more fossils that match. He chose to rename the species "Danaeites macrophyllum."

In my opinion, whatever this is, it should be removed from the "Danaeites" genus. Perhaps with a new genus erected. Other fossils called "Danaeites" are clearly Marattialean ferns that resemble Pecopterids. These are "Danaeites emersonii" and "Danaeites rigida".

I think Sherry's fossils are clearly not ferns and look nothing like the other "Danaeites". So, we've been using the term "Danaeites" in a temporary placeholder type of way. Does that make sense?

Paul,

That absolutely makes sense,... thanks for clarifying. The closest thing I could find on George's Basement was Sphenopteris squamosa - but there is no veining in the drawing. Pinnule shape is close, though.

The closest (but not perfect ) match in my opinion, is from the wrong time period. Dicroidium zuberi from the Triassic.

Someone really needs to update/research the carboniferous plant fossils.

Regards,

Edited October 12, 2015 by Fossildude19

[Stocksdale]

Dicroidium probably isn't right. But it may be closer than you think. Sherry's fossils look a lot closer to Triassic plants than the typical Carboniferous ones.

[Fossildude19]

No, I understand it isn't Dicroidium,... I was just noting the resemblance.

Again, not a perfect resemblance, but somewhat close.

I am stumped for the nonce.

Regards,

[paleoflor]

The pinnules of Sphenopteris are generally constricted at the base, and have a mid-vein that produces forking secondary veins. Both, especially the latter character, appear absent in the specimen under consideration and, therefore, I think we can rule out forms placed within Sphenopteris... Looking at the second photo, the venation could be called "taeniopteroid", perhaps (?)... But otherwise it doesn't resemble Taeniopteris... The genus Dicroidium goes only back to the Permian, I believe.

[ZiggieCie]

Tim and Paul, I sent Sherry some B72 Alcohol mix home with her friends from our fossil club meeting this weekend. I was noticing that many of her fossils have very delicate looking structures and was thinking B72 might be a good covering for them. I sent the B72 Alcohol formula since the alcohol does not react with dampness the way Acetone does. I told her friends to tell her to try it on common pieces to see how it works. Sherry did they get it to you yet?

I have no experiance with plants yet and would like to know your thoughts on using the B-72 for Sherry.

THX Ziggie

[saysac]

Ziggie I have not seen them yet. Is this a cleaner for the fossil or a sealant? That was very kind of you!

[ZiggieCie]

It is a sealent, and used by many museums and members here. Your friends will get it to you and some blank forms you can consider for a jump-start on record keeping.

Your fossils Glen brought in were amazing, great fish.

Here is a link on B-72, yours will be the mix with Alcohol.

http://www.connectingtocollections.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Davidson_and_Brown_2012_Paraloid_B-72-_Practical_tips_for_the_vertebrate_fossil_preparator.pdf

Edited October 14, 2015 by ZiggieCie

[saysac]

Thank you for everything Ziggie, and hope to bring some new ones to the next meeting! The cataloging these is pretty overwhelming and intimidating to me. I think this would be a great field trip for a group to come to my house to see, study and catalog them :-)

[Stocksdale]

I'm not sure about the B72. I'm familiar with using it to coat the area where an ID number is marked on the fossil, but uncertain about coating an entire fossil.

In my opinion, coating the entire fossil would be unnecessary in most cases and may cause problems for further research. Particular concern would be the ability to do leaf cuticle research once it is coated.

I'm certainly a novice at this so I'd appreciate other people's thoughts with more expertise.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Stocksdale