Jump to content

Mississippian Age Fossils, Oklahoma.


dances-with-snakes

Recommended Posts

  • New Members

Need help with identifying these "PODS"

Mayes County, OK

Mississippian, Boone Fm, Possibly Pitkin Limestone

post-420-0-42587500-1305922873_thumb.jpg

post-420-0-49125500-1305922776_thumb.jpg

post-1807-0-61188900-1305921568_thumb.jpg

Virgil G Richards

dws@dances-with-snakes.com

webmaster@okmineralsocieties.org

Director, Tulsa Rock & Mineral Society

Oklahoma State Director, Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical Societies

Webmaster, Oklahoma State Council of Mineral Societies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum from CT. :)

What is the scale/size of these items?

Regards,

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png    VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015       MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg        IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024   IPFOTM5.png.fb4f2a268e315c58c5980ed865b39e1f.png

_________________________________________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Without knowing the size....and without really knowing anything about the Mississippian in the first place, my guesses (if I had to give them) would be first concretions and then maybe reptile eggs (but that's only based on an extremely superficial glance).

.

____________________

scale in avatar is millimeters

____________________

Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser'

____________________

WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org)

____________________

"Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly."

-- Mr. Edonihce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Without knowing the size....and without really knowing anything about the Mississippian in the first place, my guesses (if I had to give them) would be first concretions and then maybe reptile eggs (but that's only based on an extremely superficial glance).

Reptiles do not appear in the fossil record until the late Pennsylvanian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reptiles do not appear in the fossil record until the late Pennsylvanian.

Doh! :P

There I go again with my naive trust of Wikipedia...

"Temporal range: Mississippian - Recent 320–0 Ma"

.

____________________

scale in avatar is millimeters

____________________

Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser'

____________________

WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org)

____________________

"Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly."

-- Mr. Edonihce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doh! :P

There I go again with my naive trust of Wikipedia...

"Temporal range: Mississippian - Recent 320–0 Ma"

No problem. They cite a specimen from East Kirkton, a specimen from the Mississippian of Scotland. It was reported as the earliest reptile nearly 20 years ago, though was debunked shortly after. I believe it turned out to be a microsaur, which are amphibians convergent with early reptiles because both have highly terrestrial lives.

cheers,

-PzF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PzF,

Always enjoy reading your posts,... I always learn something! :)

Regards,

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png    VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015       MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg        IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024   IPFOTM5.png.fb4f2a268e315c58c5980ed865b39e1f.png

_________________________________________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • New Members

My bad fellas, I know I'm supposed to scale these pics. My thanks to the moderator. Relative size of these individual "pods"are approximatelt the size of a duck egg. The "shell" thickness is about 1.5mm and appears to be uniform. They are not concretions, nor could they be reptilian eggs. The area where found is definitely Mississippian age deposits. Note that there are crinoid stem segments to about 4mm diameter in the matrix limestone. The entire matrix specimen is weathered and oxidized from exposure making the specimens in question more durable than the matrix. Texture of the extrior is smooth with a slightly pitted appearance, while the interior wall of the shell is more graphic and roughly textured. The more intact specimen is infilled with a chalky calcium carbonate and the broken specimen is infilled with limestone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ultra-slow internet connection won't let me see in a larger size, hope you'll resize a set. No fossil hound but these remind me of what praying mantis are born in. So could it be something similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool finds! I am guessing from southern Mayes County where the Pitkin might be exposed. Maybe some sort of algal "root" structures? Seems like the deposition would be too deep for those sort of aquatic plants perhaps. They do seem rather egg like, that would be pretty amazing if it were the case. Well, hope you don't me speculating, maybe someone will see the posts and will have some further insight into what these might be.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking crinoid float, but I don't see an attachment point and they look a little different than the ones I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad fellas, I know I'm supposed to scale these pics. My thanks to the moderator. Relative size of these individual "pods"are approximatelt the size of a duck egg. The "shell" thickness is about 1.5mm and appears to be uniform. They are not concretions, nor could they be reptilian eggs. The area where found is definitely Mississippian age deposits. Note that there are crinoid stem segments to about 4mm diameter in the matrix limestone. The entire matrix specimen is weathered and oxidized from exposure making the specimens in question more durable than the matrix. Texture of the extrior is smooth with a slightly pitted appearance, while the interior wall of the shell is more graphic and roughly textured. The more intact specimen is infilled with a chalky calcium carbonate and the broken specimen is infilled with limestone.

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with duck eggs.

We still don't ave a scale for these things without going to another site to find out how big they are. Any chance you can just give us a measurement?

Thanks.

Still can't see but thumbnail and still a novice but saw a pic of a crinoid flotation bulb here.. http://www.flickr.co...57620818527841/

Wow, yet another cool thing about crinoids. I knew about the free-swimming kind, but I had no idea that some have floatation devices......these characters just keep getting more and more interesting all the time. Seems like they have had quite a good run of mutations that ended up helping them along their evolutionary path......or if not helpful, at least interesting to learn about.

.

____________________

scale in avatar is millimeters

____________________

Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser'

____________________

WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org)

____________________

"Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly."

-- Mr. Edonihce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find! I was curious enough to do a little research on the formation you mentioned and found that it contains oolitic limestone layers. That prompted me to do a little more looking for information about oolitic limestone and (as the name implies) found that it contains egg-shaped sedimentary grains that are normally < 2mm in diameter. As your finds are about the size of duck eggs I ruled out the possibility of them being ooids but them stumbled on a reference to something called pisoids that are larger. A quick search for pisoids led me to pisolite, a sedimentary rock with concretionary grains that are > 2mm in diameter.

Here is a picture from the Wikipedia article on Pisolite. You might try comparing your specimens to see what you think.

800px-Calcario2EZ.jpg

-Joe

Illigitimati non carborundum

Fruitbat's PDF Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find! I was curious enough to do a little research on the formation you mentioned and found that it contains oolitic limestone layers. That prompted me to do a little more looking for information about oolitic limestone and (as the name implies) found that it contains egg-shaped sedimentary grains that are normally < 2mm in diameter. As your finds are about the size of duck eggs I ruled out the possibility of them being ooids but them stumbled on a reference to something called pisoids that are larger. A quick search for pisoids led me to pisolite, a sedimentary rock with concretionary grains that are > 2mm in diameter.

His appear to be chalcedony, so that would rule out pisolitic limestone.

2012 NCAA Collegiate Round Ball Champs; and in '98, '96, '78, 58, '51, '49, and '48, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...