MacKenzie Smith
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@scott-johansen @a-trilobite @corine Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I did not know what this was either and so I showed the picture to my advisor. This is a leaf from a plant called Quereuxia though it has also been referred to as Trapago in the literature. The name Quereuxia has priority though. It’s an aquatic flowering plant that belongs to the family Trapaceae which today only has one living genus and lives exclusively in eastern Asia. I’m aware of only one other extinct genus in this family. Most Quereuxia fossils are known from the Late Cretaceous of Russia and Canada. While Quereuxia has been described from the Green River before, it is incredibly rare! This is an excellent find!
<span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@nyl”>@nyla-alisia</span>, Do you think you could include a scale bar in your photo? Looking at it again, it reminds me of a new genus I described about a year ago from that formation. It is in the Ericaceae (blueberry family). If the fruit are about 2 cm long, it could be Juddicarpon.
Hello <span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@nyla”>@nyla-alisia</span> and <span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@vp”>@vperez</span>. Short answer is that this is an infructesence (a group of fruit). Can you possible provide a close up to one of them please? Thanks! I’ve worked on Clarkia material before but have not seen this (also Clarkia is the name of the flora, the formation name is Latah). Malvaceae (mallows and cotton) and Fabaceae (peas/beans) are the first two families that come to mind.
Yes, I was agreeing with the ID. I don’t know what’s common or not in that area, just that it would fit given the age.
@richard-lee That would be my guess too.
@richard-lee I believe this is one of those Lepidodendrons that crossed into the Triassic. Not too many of them. The diamond shaped leaf bases are what makes me think that and rule out araucarioxylon which I don’t believe has that external texture.
Hi @john-stec Nice to meet you.
Hello @joey-bekius,
It certainly looks like it could be plant material. Can you give us some more background information on the specimen (how big is it, where was it found) please? There appears to be a node with divots in it which leads me to believe it could be the horsetail Calamites. This genus is limited to the Late Paleozoic though which is why the additional information helps. Fossil stems (which includes wood) are actually best identified from the cross section because the types of cells and their organization are very diagnostic. Granted, we don’t always get preservation at the cellular level but we get it more frequently than one would expect. Thus, if you can get a picture from the cross section angle, that would also help with ID.
Thanks!
Great! @david-powers I’m glad you were able to ID it! 🙂
Hello @david-powers! Sorry for the delayed response. It appears to me the best match is Dicotylophyllum hansonium from Peppe and Hickey 2014. However, there do seem to be some differences. Either you fossil has better preservation of the tertiary fabric than their specimens or it’s different. One of their figured specimens appears to have asymmetrical venation off of the secondaries (though this could be an artifact of preservation) which I did not see in yours. But the palmate, acrodromous venation and toothed margin all fit. This genus is a morphogenus, if I recall correctly, and so we don’t know what it’s related to. Hope that helps!
@nathan-newell and @sadie-mills I think my interpretation is going to partially hinge on the age (which I know isn’t the best practice but some place to start). While it appears there are ridges in part, they don’t seem continuous. Therefore, I do not interpret this as vasculature. Instead, I think this is a combination of the rock’s texture behind the fossil and the original material drying and shrinking during lithification. If we do interpret this as vasculature, then it might be good to consider the age. When we look at plants younger than Famennian there are two main groups of vascular plants: Lycopodophytina (or the club mosses) and Polypodiopsida (or Monilophyta, ferns and allies). The Lycopodophytina have microphylls (one strand of vasculature) and the Polypodiopsida have macrophylls (multiple or branching strands of vasculature). If we interpret the all of the ridges as vasculature then we rule out the lycopods and are left with the Monilophytes which don’t have parallel veination. This leads me to further believe it’s some sort of macroalgae (seaweed). My interpretation might change if it were 3D.
Hi Jen,
Do you know how old they are? And did they come from a creek/spoil pile or the rock/ground? From what I’ve read I don’t know of known fossil localities from the area but I’ve also never been to MA.
I don’t see any cell structure in the cross section that would indicate that this is plant material. Another possibility are the casts of burrows (the burrow fills).
Looks like a stem of some kind. I’m arguing stem and not leaf because 1) I don’t see venation and 2) It appears that there are lateral shoots coming off of it. Could be some sort of Progymnosperm or Pteridospermatophyte (depending on your classification scheme) or a Cordaixylon. It’s a seed plant if that helps. I’m not as familiar with the area but given the age and texture of the stem it’s safe to rule out other Carboniferous plants like Calamites, Lepidodendron, Sagellaria and all of the tree ferns.
These to me look more fish-like (either ribs or spikes). If ribs, they curve downwards which would mean this fish is taller than wide and was probably not a bottom feeder or dweller. Maybe @vperez or @jeanette-pirlo might know.
@alex-rosas Today the most common species of deer in FL is Odocoileus virginianus but I do not know which species of deer were running around during the Pleistocene.
I agree with @vperez that it is probably deer. The obturator foramen is the same shape/proportion. The coloration makes me think Pleistocene and if it’s denser than modern bone that it most likely is Pleistocene.
I have a couple of ideas and one I’m leaning more to. Let me check with people who are more knowledgeable than me and get back to you.
Here is some info from the USGS on the area. There is a list of fossils from there too. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0629a/report.pdf
