Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 23 minutes ago, doushantuo said: Thank you. It's definitely Hirnantian Ashgill Shales formation. I have diagnostic species such as the brachiopods Hirnantia sagittifera and Eostropheodonta hirnantensis. collected on the same day from the same locality. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 21 minutes ago, doushantuo said: The High Pike Haw Fm. seems to have corals,but no species designations are known to me(as we speak,that is) The only coral determined from here was Petraia sp. which is now changed to Streptelasma aequisulcatum, I understand. I have one and it's not this: Diameter 8 mm 2 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Not Muenstraia? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 23 minutes ago, TqB said: Bryozoan looks good - Harper and Owen, Fossils of the Upper Ordovician, has a "Monotrypa" from Coniston that could fit. The only Prasopora (P. grayae) listed in it is typically only 1cm across. Good call, I think. Some of these are from earlier in the Ordovician and one from the Wenlock, but the match is closer. 2 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 How a bryozoan can mimic a receptaculid: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 17 minutes ago, TqB said: I was meaning pores between the tubes, connecting them, characteristic of favositids. But the tubes are too small for corallites anyway so bryozoan is a better bet. Mural pores, no, not that I can see, but I agree, I'm getting pretty sure it's a bryozoan. Which is good, I love bryozoans. So overlooked and underrated beasties. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Mural pores can be totally absent in favositids(edit: I think) I never overlook Paleozoic clonal organisms 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, doushantuo said: Mural pores can be totally absent in favositids Thanks, i didn't know that, thought they were diagnostic. Anyway, the pores are too widely separated, it's not a favositid, i'm fairly certain. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 18 minutes ago, doushantuo said: Not Muenstraia? Mine's too early to be this, I think? Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 50 minutes ago, doushantuo said: Mural pores can be totally absent in favositids(edit: I think) I never overlook Paleozoic clonal organisms Not according to the Treatise although that is getting on a bit now (1981 supplement). 2 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Maybe my memory is acting up,dunno.At least in some parastriatoporids pores can be very rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 1 hour ago, TqB said: I was meaning pores between the tubes, connecting them, characteristic of favositids. But the tubes are too small for corallites anyway so bryozoan is a better bet. That's one way to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 35 minutes ago, Rockwood said: That's one way to get there. Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Amazing thread, y'all! The amount of imparted information, and the well-supported presentation of it, deserves a round of applause! 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...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Auspex said: Amazing thread, y'all! The amount of imparted information, and the well-supported presentation of it, deserves a round of applause! Absolutely! The forum at it's very best, bouncing ideas, eliminating some, adding others, sharing knowledge and in the end, a result. (I think!) 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 comparative image - chaetetid sponge (TFF ) 2 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 59 minutes ago, abyssunder said: comparative image - chaetetid sponge (TFF ) Thanks, it does look a lot like my specimen, but the 'tubes' seem much finer on a chaetid,and chaetids are generally more massive? Also i can't find any sponges/chaetids listed for this formation or locality. 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 The diagnostic features may be in longitudinal and transverse thin sections with a higher resolution (SEM) images. There are dome-shaped fossil chaetetid sponges as well as briozoans in many regions of the world (described or not). Without a closer look up in the terms mentioned, I think, everything is just a guess (including mine). 1 " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 In the Upper Ordovician Cincinnatian Series of North America there is a problematic coral called Tetradium. Dead ringer IMHO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 24, 2018 Author Share Posted March 24, 2018 It's a close match, for sure, Tetradium seems to have been classed as a sponge, then an algae and sometimes as a coral. But it's 'tubes' are about one millimetre in width and those in my specimen are much less and Tetradium is not reported from the UK as far as i can establish. Still, it's another option, thank you @erose Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pachy Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 I'm late but I'm going for briozoo. http://fossiilid.info/7744 http://fossiilid.info/7312 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 24, 2018 Author Share Posted March 24, 2018 14 hours ago, abyssunder said: The diagnostic features may be in longitudinal and transverse thin sections with a higher resolution (SEM) images. There are dome-shaped fossil chaetetid sponges as well as briozoans in many regions of the world (described or not). Without a closer look up in the terms mentioned, I think, everything is just a guess (including mine). What is interesting is that the bryozoan genus Monotrypa , was first described under the type species of Chaetetes undulatus, which is now Monotrypa undulatus, presumably because this genus, suggested by Tarquin and Pachy above, looks a lot like a chaetetid sponge and was thought to be one. 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 24, 2018 Author Share Posted March 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, Pachy said: I'm late but I'm going for briozoo. http://fossiilid.info/7744 http://fossiilid.info/7312 Yes, both suggestions I like, but Prasopora, which i suggested myself, seems to be to small to fit my colony. I think Monotrypa is a better fit. It's never too late, so thank you! Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: What is interesting is that the bryozoan genus Monotrypa , was first described under the type species of Chaetetes undulatus, which is now Monotrypa undulatus, presumably because this genus, suggested by Tarquin and Pachy above, looks a lot like a chaetetid sponge and was though to be one. That's interesting, I'm still not convinced that all chaetetids are sponges in any case - I believe spicules have only been detected in very few of them. By the way, the genus Monotrypa is given in inverted commas in the UK Upper Ordovician guide I referenced so cf. Monotrypa is probably safer. 1 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 24, 2018 Author Share Posted March 24, 2018 1 hour ago, TqB said: That's interesting, I'm still not convinced that all chaetetids are sponges in any case - I believe spicules have only been detected in very few of them. By the way, the genus Monotrypa is given in inverted commas in the UK Upper Ordovician guide I referenced so cf. Monotrypa is probably safer. Yes, I agree, I am probably going to label this as such, but even that is a little tenuous, but i think it's the best match all taken into consideration. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. 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