@sadie-mills Sorry, not from this photo. Needs a closer sharp photo but it looks to be only the thorax from this photo which would make it impossible to ID.

@nathan-newell Have you read “Nautilus, Beautiful Survivor, 500 million years of evolutionary history” by Wolfgang Grulke? It has lots of beautiful color photos and great information. Grulke’s previous book, “Heteromorph” was about the really odd ammonites. You’ll like that too.

Osgood doesn’t necessarily name them to specific trace maker but the names vary based upon their morphology. I think there are at least three versions all possibly attributed to Isotelus. The terms Osgood uses at least have an ichnospecies name while I am not aware of the same with Diplichnites.

I go by Osgood’s work wherein he discusses Cincinnatian arthropod trackways under different genera stating, “there is considerable doubt as to the true affinities of the commonly mentioned genera of supposed trilobite tracks… Diplichnites” (p352, 355). So each of the trackways I have submitted would have different ichnogenera and none would be…[Read more]

That sounds right although I did not include the actual trace fossil taxonomy which I probably do not know. I included the taxonomy of the possible trace maker. Poor form… but my original purpose wasn’t to do a proper museum label but rather to show people what a trace fossil from a given critter looked like.

Perhaps pseudofossil isn’t a good choice. It is a pseudo trace fossil. Since trace fossils are those made by an animal doing something and this trace is made by water currents acting on a piece of crinoid stem I don’t think it can be called a trace fossil. Is that correct? This is not mistaken for a crinoid but might be mistaken for a real…[Read more]

Unable to upload image with scale sending via email

I created a new image with scale bar and size but once again could not upload the image!!!! I sent the replacement image to you by email. I also sent feedback again.

Jen,

I could fudge one in based on the dimensions listed here. This was the first specimen I cut from this locality for Carl Brett at UC. He has the specimen. Do you still need a scale bar?

I took Richmondian out of the group. I have no idea what Group means in the Cincinnatian. Also updated taxonomy.

This one is 25 mm

@jbauer Jen, Jen, Jen, it is 10 mm as indicated below the bar 🙂 Hardly visible in the thumbnail but OK when you enlarge the photo. Got you on this one… BTW, I no longer have this specimen. Traded it for something or other.

All fixed.

I made changes as suggested.

Yes. I added that.

@jbauer Ha! welcome to the ever confusing world of algae, porifera and corals. So, Dermatostroma glyptum (this specimen) has been redescribed by Dixon, Bolton, and Copper (1986 JP) (copy of same coming to you in email) as a heliolitid coral Ellisites glyptum. Other species within Dermatostroma apparently remain stromatoporoids within that…[Read more]

@jbauer This Dermatostroma is not a glyptum so therefore remains a Dermatostroma. It could be scabrum but I am not sure. I will have to dig this one out an add a scale bar.