DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 I’ve got some ID requests that need to be solved. First (#1) an old friend that needs to be re-evaluated I think. I know this to be solidly mid to late Cambrian in age which leads me to believe its some kind of ichofossil perhaps Cruziana. What are your thoughts? Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 Next up (#2) is this most recent addition to my collection from the Manning Canyon Shale which is Late Mississippian/Early Pennsylvanian in age. It was found with numerous brachiopods on this trip. Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 (#2) Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 # 2 looks like remnants of a mineralised vein. No idea on #1 1 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 The last one (#3) here is from the Mississippian Great Blue Limestone. Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Not sure about the first two but could the third be a brachiopod spine? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 54 minutes ago, ynot said: # 2 looks like remnants of a mineralised vein. No idea on #1 I have one of the brachiopods that appears to be replaced with whatever that stuff is as well. I thought if a brachiopod could be replaced then something else could be too. I thought it would be best to check here before discounting it as just a mineral deposit. You can certainly see a few calcite or quartz veins running through it. Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 I think 3 could be a scaphopod sp. 4 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Could number three be the scaphopod Laevidentalium ? 5 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Archie said: Not sure about the first two but could the third be a brachiopod spine? That would be really cool if it was but there are that many spiny brachiopods in this formation at least that I’ve come across. I’m not ruling it out yet, though. 1 Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, ynot said: I think 3 could be a scaphopod sp. 2 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: Could number three be the scaphopod Laevidentalium ? That would be a first for me and two of them in the same rock at that. 1 Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Just now, UtahFossilHunter said: That would be a first for me and two of them in the same rock at that. Yeah, and I'd be jealous. I love scaphopods. 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 I don't think that #1 is Cruziana. They tend to have a double row of prints and your's appears to only have one. I've no idea what it could be otherwise, but trace fossil is a possibility. 3 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Amateur Paleontologist Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Like others, I'm pretty sure that the last one is a scaphopod -Christian 3 Opalised fossils are the best: a wonderful mix between paleontology and mineralogy! Q. Where do dinosaurs study? A. At Khaan Academy!... My ResearchGate profile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 17 minutes ago, ynot said: I think 3 could be a scaphopod sp. 17 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: Could number three be the scaphopod Laevidentalium ? 12 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: Yeah, and I'd be jealous. I love scaphopods. Scaphopod was also my idea, and i too am jealous. 2 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 15 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said: Yeah, and I'd be jealous. I love scaphopods. I can’t find anything in the literature about any being in that formation. I’ll have to take it to a local expert. That’d be even cooler if it were a new species. 10 minutes ago, Ludwigia said: I don't think that #1 is Cruziana. They tend to have a double row of prints and your's appears to only have one. I've no idea what it could be otherwise, but trace fossil is a possibility. I can’t it either. Maybe it’s some kind of polychaete worm trace. 8 minutes ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said: Like others, I'm pretty sure that the last one is a scaphopod -Christian 1 minute ago, fifbrindacier said: Scaphopod was also my idea, and i too am jealous. Sweet! 2 Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Maybe the first one has infilled and mineralized desiccation cracks of an ancient mudstone. 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...
connorp Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 #1 might be some sort of algae. Reminiscent of some specimens I've found. However, the veins that are running nearly perpendicular to the specimen are strange, and appear to follow cracks in the rock. So infilling as the post above suggests seems more likely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Scaphopod was my first thought. I know they exist in the Mississippian forward, but I’m not sure they are found in the Cambrian. Could they be denticles of some kind? Never mind it’s Cambrian. Maybe something closer to ribeirioid rostroconch mollusk If mollusk. I think it’s not likely a mollusk if Cambrian though. I’m not sure if any cephalopods existed back then either. Regarding trace fossils there are fossils Protichnites and Climactichnites trace fossils. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, KimTexan said: Scaphopod was my first thought. I know they exist in the Mississippian forward, but I’m not sure they are found in the Cambrian. Could they be denticles of some kind? Never mind it’s Cambrian. Maybe something closer to ribeirioid rostroconch mollusk If mollusk. I think it’s not likely a mollusk if Cambrian though. I’m not sure if any cephalopods existed back then either. Regarding trace fossils there are fossils Protichnites and Climactichnites trace fossils. Number 3 (the possible scaphopod) is Mississippian, Kim. 1 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, abyssunder said: Maybe the first one has infilled and mineralized desiccation cracks of an ancient mudstone. I thought about that but the structures do not go all the way through, it’s a very thin surficial feature. There’s one on the back as well that runs perpendicular to the one on the front side. I seem to have failed to post the picture of that one. Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, KimTexan said: Scaphopod was my first thought. I know they exist in the Mississippian forward, but I’m not sure they are found in the Cambrian. Could they be denticles of some kind? Never mind it’s Cambrian. Maybe something closer to ribeirioid rostroconch mollusk If mollusk. I think it’s not likely a mollusk if Cambrian though. I’m not sure if any cephalopods existed back then either. Only #1 is from the Cambrian. The other two are from the Mississippian. 6 minutes ago, KimTexan said: Regarding trace fossils there are fossils Protichnites and Climactichnites trace fossils. Thanks, I see the similarity in Protichnites tail drag but I’m not seeing any foot traces parallel with it. Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, UtahFossilHunter said: I thought about that but the structures do not go all the way through, it’s a very thin surficial feature. There’s one on the back as well that runs perpendicular to the one on the front side. I seem to have failed to post the picture of that one. I'll remain in my theory. B . Mudcracks from the top of the Cambrian Alum Shale Formation underlying the Lower Ordovician succession; VästraTunhem locality, pencil for scale. picture from here 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...
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