astron Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I found last Sunday this 16 cm fossil in my hunting area (late miocene Crete island, Greece) with the prep finished yesterday. It seems to me like an almost comlete palm leaf with a small part lost. But isn't that too tiny for this species and what exactly could it be? Thank you very much for every interest. Best wishes Astrinos Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) Maybe some kind of Cycadid? I'll look it up, wait a while... So here is a picture of a Cycas leaf, any similar structrures you can see on your speciment? What intrigues me are these thingsI've encircled with red... Some kind of disease maybe? Parasitic fossil fungi? Are these on top or within the fossil? Edited September 6, 2011 by paco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Maybe some kind of Cycadid? I'll look it up, wait a while... So here is a picture of a Cycas leaf, any similar structrures you can see on your speciment? What intrigues me are these thingsI've encircled with red... Some kind of disease maybe? Parasitic fossil fungi? Are these on top or within the fossil? Could be either Spirorbis worm tubes, or fertile structures? Nice catch Paco! Great fossil Astrinos! It is a beauty, for sure. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmerlin Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) could possibly be some sort of leaf miner the larvae stage of many insects such as sawflies,moths,some wasps and beetles . May be fungus but most likely some kind of leaf gall insect see attached thumbnail Very nice fossil and looks to be Cycas leaf to me also Edited September 6, 2011 by ckmerlin "A man who stares at a rock must have a lot on his mind... or nothing at all' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Pretty sure his are fungi. I've found some Otozamites that have a very similar form. Mind you these are Triassic but are called Xylomites zamitae. They are characterized by the crator shape with a medial stalk. (Bock 1969) Not sure of your time period there but it might be a start. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted September 6, 2011 Author Share Posted September 6, 2011 Many thanks, paco, Tim, ckmerlin and John, for your answers and your valuable help. These formations are common in my plant material and range in size from under 1 mm to huge in relation to the item they are attached to. You can have a complete icon of them if looking at the posts 424 - 428 of my collection ( mylink ) and at the attached pics of a branch section found recently and a close up of it. And not to forget for John, all my finds are of the late miocene ( about 10 mya ). Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I still believe they're a fungi of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Nice palm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Wow Astrinos! Another Phoenix cf. theophrasti fossil. If you search google images for 'Phoenix Palm Frond' you will find many similar modern examples. The rachis is correct and the smaller size is consistent with the distal portion of the frond. Congratulations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Piranha I respectfully disagruee... Ok maybe I'll give you the "palm part" of the Id (only because I really don't know the flora found by Astrinos and I cannot clearly see any prominent midribs, although that is not always the case with cycas "palms", see attached pic and link: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/fp.php?pid=1156090) but P. theophrasti? I don't think so. I don't see the structural similarities that would make me agree... And Cycas is an "Old World" native, it could very well be found on Miocene Crete IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmerlin Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I still believe they're a fungi of some sort. Here is thumbnail of modern leaf with fungal infection looks very similar to fossil fungal spores "A man who stares at a rock must have a lot on his mind... or nothing at all' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Piranha I respectfully disagruee... Ok maybe I'll give you the "palm part" of the Id (only because I really don't know the flora found by Astrinos and I cannot clearly see any prominent midribs, although that is not always the case with cycas "palms", see attached pic and link: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/fp.php?pid=1156090) but P. theophrasti? I don't think so. I don't see the structural similarities that would make me agree... And Cycas is an "Old World" native, it could very well be found on Miocene Crete IMHO... Hi again Astrinos & Paco, Thanks for the reply. Here is why I believe this is a Phoenix type palm. First, the designation of cf. was placed as theophrasti is the extant analog closest in my opinion to this fossil. You are attempting to illustrate with the first photo that the adaxial splits in the leaf of Phoenix appear to divide the blade to the rachis. However, close examination of the modern plant would show a thin band of lamina tissue along the rachis connecting the bases of the leaflets. So in my estimation one of two (or both) possibilities exist. Perhaps as the sediment encapsulated the frond, the compression flattened and distorted this aspect somewhat. Additionally, I am almost convinced that the second leaflet (top right) displays this morphology to a certain degree although that leads to the next observation that the rachis is overlaying and obscuring this feature for the specimen overall. One final thought to consider: what have the millennia had to say about the attachment point as an evolutionary response to a more efficient means of conserving water? A fascinating plant and discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 John and ckmerlin, Many thanks for the helpful follow ups Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Nice palm! Thanks, Mike, for your comment Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 My friends, paco and Scott!!! Wow :o I'm so pleased if your conversation is caused by a fossil of mine Thank you both so much for the intersest and for the help :bow: In order us to have a scientific opinion on this fossil I have PM to the geologist Dr. C. Fassoulas of the University of Crete. Despite to his heavy program, I believe that we will have his answer on it. I'll keep you updated. Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromeus Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Beautiful piece! really detailed. Congratulations! http://MinerFossil.Jimdo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Perhaps as the sediment encapsulated the frond, the compression flattened and distorted this aspect somewhat. Additionally, I am almost convinced that the second leaflet (top right) displays this morphology to a certain degree although that leads to the next observation that the rachis is overlaying and obscuring this feature for the specimen overall. Well, I have to agree with you, I had thought of sedimentary compression beign the cause of the "flat" bases,too. But I still think at least half of the bases should have had the "wrong" orientation to be completely flatened when they were embedded in the rock and thus still should be showing the "constricted" type of leaflet base... Well that's my opinion anyway. That snarge compression, always altering 3D to 2D appearance, hahaha... Hope Dr. Fassoulas will find time to clear the matter :-) PS: I love a nice morning discussion of this type, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 Beautiful piece! really detailed. Congratulations! Thanks a lot, Robert, for the nice comment Astrinos P. Damianakis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 While we await the response from Professor Fassoulas I asked Professor Retallack for an evaluation. His answer is this specimen is definitely not a cycad. The folds of the pinnate leaves (see bottom right leaf) are indicative of a palm and the overall arrangement and attachment not consistent for cycad. He concurs this is a Phoenix type palm fossil. It will be interesting to get these sorted out, especially the spectacular part and counterpart specimen posted previously. Great find Astrinos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Ok, I'm fine with this ID fro the time :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astron Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) While we await the response from Professor Fassoulas I asked Professor Retallack for an evaluation. His answer is this specimen is definitely not a cycad. The folds of the pinnate leaves (see bottom right leaf) are indicative of a palm and the overall arrangement and attachment not consistent for cycad. He concurs this is a Phoenix type palm fossil. It will be interesting to get these sorted out, especially the spectacular part and counterpart specimen posted previously. Great find Astrinos! Scott and paco great contributions continuation. Scott, beeing close to me from my first steps here in TFF, justifiedly keeps in mind my fisrt phoenix theophrastii palm leaf section {attached). Scott, your movement to ask about my fossil Prof. Retallack, is a new great contribution to me, a new ring to the big chain of your offers and I have no wards to thank you about that. Unfortunately I am not so lucky. Dr C.Fassoulas, responsible for the biodiversity of the Natural History Museum of Crete, is a geologist but not a paleontologist. And, as there is no paleontologist in the University of Crete ( ), he has kindly forwarded my questions on this fossil to the paleontologist Dr G. Iliopoulos of the University of Patras, who cooperates with the UOC when the circumstances call it!!! I am sure that Dr Iliopoulos will answer me some time, when he gets a chance. Until then we have given that it's about a palm leaf , since this aspect comes and from a scientist and this is enforced by the fact that none cycas (cycadaceae) fossil is recorded in my island sofar. Moreover, my searches in all of my sources, are indicating that the only palm species fossils found sofar in my island are of phoenix theophrastii and of chamaerops humilis. The second one is excluded since there is no similarity to this fossil. On the other hand there are similarities with the first species. For those reasons, I have to acept Scott's aspect that it's about a phoenix leaf. This happens until Dr Iliopoulos' answer when you will be updated. Any way, this is the first almost complete palm leaf fossil ever found in my island and the first of this species. Thanks again everyone for your interest and for your help. Best wishes Astrinos Edit 12.12.12. According to paleobotanist G.Zidianakis, this is the second sample of the cycad family of ZAMIACEAE ever found in my country. It has been donated to the Natural History Museum of Crete for scientific examination and an exact id and it will be exhibited in the Museum's exhibition as soon as the plant section of the exhibition operates.. Edited December 14, 2012 by astron Astrinos P. Damianakis 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