West Virginia Orthocone?

[Fossildude19]

Doesn't look like Bactrites, either though.  

 

 

 

Bactrites acciculum

Windom Shale, Blasdell, NY.

Penn Dixie Quarry.

Found in 2011 - roughly 2 1/4 inches long.

 

Again, the size is an issue.  

 

I didn't find a faunal list of the Mahantango in the link you posted. 

I did find this quote, however.

 

"The faunal and lithologic similarities between the Mahantango Formation in the mapped area and the upper part of the Hamilton Group at its type area in central New York are striking."

 

I've hunted the Hamilton Group in Central NY, and find Spyroceras there. 

[Kane]

Bactrites are generally quite small, as Tim said. Also, if you compare the OP's specimen against Bactrites, you'll find the septae spacing is quite different (i.e., Bactrites sp. septa are generally less deeply grooved and closer together than in this specimen).

[Plax]

perhaps one of the glass sponges? Doesn't look cephy to me. Note that a question mark indicates a guess...

[EMP]

2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Doesn't look like Bactrites, either though.  

 

 

 

Bactrites acciculum

Windom Shale, Blasdell, NY.

Penn Dixie Quarry.

Found in 2011 - roughly 2 1/4 inches long.

 

Again, the size is an issue.  

 

I didn't find a faunal list of the Mahantango in the link you posted. 

I did find this quote, however.

 

"The faunal and lithologic similarities between the Mahantango Formation in the mapped area and the upper part of the Hamilton Group at its type area in central New York are striking."

 

I've hunted the Hamilton Group in Central NY, and find Spyroceras there. 

 

It's down further in the report. If you found that quote then you should have found the "list" they provided. Note how Spyroceras sp. is not only not there, but wholly absent in all the different faunal lists provided. 

 

Another problem: how do we know this is even the Mahantango we're looking at? It could very well be the Needmore Formation, which has an extremely similar lithology and is mapped together with the Mahantango Formation in geologic maps. If this is from the Cacapon River area  there are numerous Needmore Formation exposures along it, and again I don't know of any Spyroceras sp. known from the Needmore either.

 

Another note: A very similar faunal composition is not an exact faunal composition. Differences in sea conditions and prey numbers could mean that certain animals (especially apex predators like orthocones) could be absent from one area. 

 

 

[doushantuo]

an orthotecid?

Á large one?

edit: nahh

[Fossildude19]

1 hour ago, EMP said:

 

It's down further in the report. If you found that quote then you should have found the "list" they provided. Note how Spyroceras sp. is not only not there, but wholly absent in all the different faunal lists provided. 

 

Another problem: how do we know this is even the Mahantango we're looking at? It could very well be the Needmore Formation, which has an extremely similar lithology and is mapped together with the Mahantango Formation in geologic maps. If this is from the Cacapon River area  there are numerous Needmore Formation exposures along it, and again I don't know of any Spyroceras sp. known from the Needmore either.

 

Another note: A very similar faunal composition is not an exact faunal composition. Differences in sea conditions and prey numbers could mean that certain animals (especially apex predators like orthocones) could be absent from one area. 

 

 

 

I don't know of any Devonian sponges that look like that.  And the only other thing I could see being remotely similar and 4 inches in length could be a Rugose coral. 
I'm not convinced, however.

 

EMP, could you please provide page numbers for the list? 
The list on page 53 and 54 (in the actual paper, page 47 and 48) is not really a faunal list, except for conodonts. 

 

"The lower part of the Mahantango is sparsely fossiliferous in most places. In some exposures in the southern half of the Pattersons Creek quadrangle, however, the brachiopods Leiorhynchus limitare and L. laura occur in profusion in the basal part of the formation. The upper part of the formation is very fossiliferous. Brachiopods are the most common forms, but pelecypods, gastropods, and cephalopods are common in some exposures. "Spirifer" tullius, Pustulina pustulosa, the coral Stereoelasma rectum., and the imprint of Taonurus caudigalli are extremely common near the top of the Mahantango.

Hass (written comm., 1957) identified the following conodonts from the upper 25 feet of the Mahantango Formation along Highway 40 about 0.4 mile west of Wolfe Mill : Bryantodus typious Ulrich and Bassler H indeodella sp. Ligonodina sp. N eoprioniodus sp. Ozarkodina sp. Polygnathus pennata Hinde"

 

The other lists after that refer to the Harrell and Woodmont Shales. 

 

We don't know which formation we are dealing with.  We would need more detailed location information for that.  

 

If you check my post, I never said it was Mahantango material, only that it looked like Mahantango material.  

 

Note: There is a difference between is and looks like.  

 

And very similar does not mean exact. I think everyone understands that.  

I was pointing out that it could mean that similar faunas exist in both.  

 

EMP - you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm not going to change your mind, and you won't change mine.    

Regards

 

 

EDIT:  I think we CAN agree that the area is not studied nearly enough, and more work and an exhaustive Faunal list needs to be compiled. 

[TqB]

Another vote for orthocone fragment, cf. Spyroceras, but I think you'd need internal detail to narrow it down much more.

[piranha]

2 hours ago, EMP said:

...I don't know of any Spyroceras sp. known from the Needmore either.

 

 

Jasper Burns has Spyroceras sp. listed from the Needmore Fm. in Pendleton County, WV.

 

Burns, J. (1991)
Fossil collecting in the Mid-Atlantic states with localities, collecting tips, and illustrations of more than 450 fossil specimens. 
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 216 pp.

 

[piranha]

In addition to Needmore, Jasper Burns collected Spyroceras in the Mahantango Fm. of Hardy & Hampshire Counties, WV.

 

Burns, J. (1991)
Fossil collecting in the Mid-Atlantic states with localities, collecting tips, and illustrations of more than 450 fossil specimens. 
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 216 pp.

 

 

[EMP]

2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

I don't know of any Devonian sponges that look like that.  And the only other thing I could see being remotely similar and 4 inches in length could be a Rugose coral. 
I'm not convinced, however.

 

EMP, could you please provide page numbers for the list? 
The list on page 53 and 54 (in the actual paper, page 47 and 48) is not really a faunal list, except for conodonts. 

 

"The lower part of the Mahantango is sparsely fossiliferous in most places. In some exposures in the southern half of the Pattersons Creek quadrangle, however, the brachiopods Leiorhynchus limitare and L. laura occur in profusion in the basal part of the formation. The upper part of the formation is very fossiliferous. Brachiopods are the most common forms, but pelecypods, gastropods, and cephalopods are common in some exposures. "Spirifer" tullius, Pustulina pustulosa, the coral Stereoelasma rectum., and the imprint of Taonurus caudigalli are extremely common near the top of the Mahantango.

Hass (written comm., 1957) identified the following conodonts from the upper 25 feet of the Mahantango Formation along Highway 40 about 0.4 mile west of Wolfe Mill : Bryantodus typious Ulrich and Bassler H indeodella sp. Ligonodina sp. N eoprioniodus sp. Ozarkodina sp. Polygnathus pennata Hinde"

 

The other lists after that refer to the Harrell and Woodmont Shales. 

 

We don't know which formation we are dealing with.  We would need more detailed location information for that.  

 

If you check my post, I never said it was Mahantango material, only that it looked like Mahantango material.  

 

Note: There is a difference between is and looks like.  

 

And very similar does not mean exact. I think everyone understands that.  

I was pointing out that it could mean that similar faunas exist in both.  

 

EMP - you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm not going to change your mind, and you won't change mine.    

Regards

 

 

EDIT:  I think we CAN agree that the area is not studied nearly enough, and more work and an exhaustive Faunal list needs to be compiled. 

 

Whatever, if you want to call it Spyroceras sp. then call it that. I disagree with that ID personally but I've disagreed with a lot of IDs on here so it's a moot point.

 

TBH no other study will be done on the rocks here because there exists no reason to. The Mahantango Formation has no valuable mineral deposits to warrant someone paying attention to it, and all the mapping required has already been done.

[Plax]

5 minutes ago, EMP said:

 

Whatever, if you want to call it Spyroceras sp. then call it that. I disagree with that ID personally but I've disagreed with a lot of IDs on here so it's a moot point.

 

TBH no other study will be done on the rocks here because there exists no reason to. The Mahantango Formation has no valuable mineral deposits to warrant someone paying attention to it, and all the mapping required has already been done.

thousands of paleontology papers are published every year without a need for more mapping or economic interest.

[EMP]

Just now, Plax said:

thousands of paleontology papers are published every year without a need for more mapping or economic interest.

 

If you're referring to ones done out west there is a very real economic interest in them: if they find a new dinosaur or a new anything else then that means that they have made a major discovery and would get the prestige of having done so for future digs as well as royalties for the publication done on it.

 

If you're referring to mapping in coastal areas or in the Midwest there exists another economic interest: the fact that geologists must stay on top of the ground structure and determine if it's safe to build a new road or shopping center in a certain area. They help determine which section of a coast is most resistant to erosion to help construction crews and local governments determine where's best to build new hotels and housing.

 

I can think of precious few papers that are published having to deal with faunal analysis of a formation that have nothing whatsoever to do with other motives.

 

[Plax]

1 minute ago, EMP said:

 

If you're referring to ones done out west there is a very real economic interest in them: if they find a new dinosaur or a new anything else then that means that they have made a major discovery and would get the prestige of having done so for future digs as well as royalties for the publication done on it.

 

If you're referring to mapping in coastal areas or in the Midwest there exists another economic interest: the fact that geologists must stay on top of the ground structure and determine if it's safe to build a new road or shopping center in a certain area. They help determine which section of a coast is most resistant to erosion to help construction crews and local governments determine where's best to build new hotels and housing.

 

I can think of precious few papers that are published having to deal with faunal analysis of a formation that have nothing whatsoever to do with other motives.

 

I don't know what to say EMP. You might want to check out some paleontology journals. Please don't take offense at this as perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

[EMP]

Just now, Plax said:

I don't know what to say EMP. You might want to check out some paleontology journals. Please don't take offense at this as perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

I'm talking about faunal analysis of formations not paleontology journals. Those could be for something as small as a revision to the number of thoracic segments on a trilobite.

[Plax]

There are a lot of papers that have a title such as "Chondrychthians of the ________Formation" or what ever group or formation. Associated fauna are often part of the content in any specific paper.

[Fossildude19]

1 hour ago, piranha said:

 

 

Jasper Burns has Spyroceras sp. listed from the Needmore Fm. in Pendleton County, WV.

 

Burns, J. (1991)
Fossil collecting in the Mid-Atlantic states with localities, collecting tips, and illustrations of more than 450 fossil specimens. 
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 216 pp.

 

 

1 hour ago, piranha said:

In addition to Needmore, Jasper Burns collected Spyroceras in the Mahantango Fm. of Hardy & Hampshire Counties, WV.

 

Burns, J. (1991)
Fossil collecting in the Mid-Atlantic states with localities, collecting tips, and illustrations of more than 450 fossil specimens. 
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 216 pp.

 

 

 

Thank you, for the supporting documentation, Scott.

It is well appreciated. Thanks for going the extra mile, as always. 

Regards,

 

[abyssunder]

I'm really far from the location of the find, but I'm jumping in with my thoughts, more precisely, I think the specimen in question is more likely an othoconic cephalopod, rather than tentaculitid. Spyroceras (Gorbyoceras/Anaspyroceras) would be good candidate(s) considering the shape, external texture of the shell and dimensions. Creatures belonging to the Tentaculita class are smaller, as far as I know.
I'm trying to compare the specimen in question with these ones, not saying it is exactly one of those species, but very similar:

 

specimen in question

 

Gorbyoceras hammelli -  R. C. Frey.  1995. Middle and Upper Ordovician Nautiloid Cephalopods of the Cincinnati Arch Region of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. Contributions to The Orgovician Paleontology of Kentucky and nearby states. USGS Professional paper 1066-P

 

Anaspyroceras williamsae - link