2 fossil caterpillars?

[Calcivacation]

These two fossils were found in glacial till on land to the western side of Seneca Lake, Schuyler County, New York. Slumping vertical bank of streambed, these were among the most recent rocks that tumbled down. Sitting on the surface, no digging required. They were maybe 300 yards apart from each other.

 

The first one is in brown sandstone matrix. The second one is in gray limestone matrix.

 

Both fossils are about the size of an average modern caterpillar. Note the segmenting. The first one also appears to have at least two legs still visible. That one has some crystal sparkling to it that the photos couldn't capture. The second one....the yellow coloration: possibly sulphur that entered in?

 

I can't come up with anything that matches what is visible other than caterpillars. But, yes, it would be a mighty lucky find for two, because caterpillars generally don't fossilize, due to their delicate structure. If anyone knows of an alternative explanation that fits, I would be very glad to hear it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rockwood]

39 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

If anyone knows of an alternative explanation that fits, I would be very glad to hear it.

Crinoid stem.

[Fossildude19]

These look like possible orthocone cephalopod fossils.  Probably something like Michelinoceras sp.

 

 

 

 

The first one I am pretty confident of, the second one is too blurry to make out the segmentation.

It could possibly be a piece of crinoid stem, but better pictures are needed.

 

 

 

 

 

Orthocones were pretty common during the Devonian Period. No caterpillars around at that time. 

[Rockwood]

The zoom acts like a game of dodge ball. It could be a nautiloid. 

I can't see the texture.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

The second one definitely looks like an orthocone, with the hollow centre for the siphuncle. This makes it likely the first specimen is also an orthoconid, although it could also still be a crinoid stem (although the fact that the fossil appears to be hollow near the bottom of the image would argue against that)...

[R0b]

Although I could easily be wrong I would say the first one is the nautiloid and the second a crinoid stem.

[Fossildude19]

6 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

The zoom acts like a game of dodge ball. It could be a nautiloid. 

I can't see the texture.

 

Michelinoceras doesn't really have a texture like Spyroceras does. Also, this looks to be a well eroded example.

Better pictures from the OP might help to inform us as to what is what here.

[Rockwood]

2 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

Michelinoceras doesn't really have a texture like Spyroceras does

Surely you jest ?

How would one compare the shell texture to that of sectioned crinoid columnals ?

[Fossildude19]

46 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

Surely you jest ?

How would one compare the shell texture to that of sectioned crinoid columnals ?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about texture on the 1st cephalopod.

Assumptions. 

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

Sorry, I thought you were talking about texture on the 1st cephalopod.

Assumptions. 

It would seem to apply to both. 

To me texture is quite different from shape (morphology). I'm trying to tell what it is made of. Calcite or vey fine sediment.

[Calcivacation]

The first one....in addition to what strongly appears to be legs along both sides, the 4th segment includes something that seems quite telling, to me: very strong resemblance to a caterpillar's spiracle. When you have the correct shape, size, and position, as they would relate to the rest of the body of a caterpillar, it is highly suggestive that the feature is not simply an artifact of deterioration processes. 

 

I have been going through a book of 600 caterpillars, from across the world, today and the resemblances to both of these fossils are much closer than nautiloids or crinoid stems.

 

There seems to be a pre-existing bias, in the scientific community, against the idea that caterpillars fossilized much, simply because of their delicate structure. Why look for something if it is thought not to exist? Why consider an explanation if it is widely thought to be virtually impossible?

 

When you consider that across time and landscapes, environments within just a few feet of each other can be very different, and some very strange conditions can be created at times, perhaps possibilities should not be so quickly discounted.

[Kane]

The morphology of these specimens, in addition to the likely geologic age of the matrix given location, are more highly suggestive that nautiloid and crinoid are the correct identifications.

[Rockwood]

14 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

There seems to be a pre-existing bias, in the scientific community

There do doubt is. Scientists are not perfect. It is the mathematical odds that I depend on the most. The burden of proof based on the numbers is the ball that I see as being in your court. Find enough mistaken identities and you will be taken seriously.

 

[Calcivacation]

Well....whether I'm wrong or whether I'm right, one thing is now a certainty: Any claimed crinoid stems and nautiloids that people have that I happen to see I will look at more closely, just for the POSSIBILITY of mistaken identities.

 

I have always been interested in specimens that are thought to be on the borderline of having any significance at all. Cull coins are an example. I purchased an inexpensive bag of 'junk' coins from a dealer on one occasion and one specimen among them actually turned out to be an anti-Andrew Jackson token from the 1830s. The dealer couldn't be bothered to take the time to study a worn piece and identify it, yet there are a fair number of collectors who are interested to have one in ANY condition, if they don't have one at all.

 

But, I digress....

[Lone Hunter]

Coins and guns are a sure thing  to positively identify so not the best comparison for mistaken identity.  There are nuances in tracks that more knowledgeable people don't see that would convince them otherwise. 

[Calcivacation]

I had sent images of the first one to a prominent entomologist....in fact, the very fellow who edited the book on caterpillars. This is the response that I received:

 

"Difficult to know for sure, but certainly could be a fossilized caterpillar that died in that spot and molded..probably only a few years ago."

 

WHAT?!? That is completely incoherent! 

[R0b]

8 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

I had sent images of the first one to a prominent entomologist....in fact, the very fellow who edited the book on caterpillars. This is the response that I received:

 

"Difficult to know for sure, but certainly could be a fossilized caterpillar that died in that spot and molded..probably only a few years ago."

 

WHAT?!? That is completely incoherent! 

If you sent the same images I am not that surprised. He expects to see a caterpillar so he will look at it with that kind of bias.

 

better images (light) would definitely help.

[Rockwood]

 I took my car to the dentist. He wasn't sure if he knew how to change the spark plugs.

[Calcivacation]

Expectations aside, my point there is that an entomologist should know very well that the fossilization process takes more than a few years!

[Rockwood]

10 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

Expectations aside, my point there is that an entomologist should know very well that the fossilization process takes more than a few years!

An entomologist ? Why would you expect someone who studies this subject to know or care the first thing about fossilization ? !

[Calcivacation]

Have things truly become so micro-compartmentalized that an entomologist can go all the way through school and college and know nothing about fossilization?

[Rockwood]

The fossilization of soft bodied creatures is beyond most folks knowledge. It's a highly specialized field.

[R0b]

6 hours ago, Calcivacation said:

Have things truly become so micro-compartmentalized that an entomologist can go all the way through school and college and know nothing about fossilization?

If you are convinced that your identification is correct then why ask us for advise?

Although there seems to be some disagreement it has been narrowed down to two options neither of them is caterpillar.

[JohnJ]

7 hours ago, Calcivacation said:

Well....whether I'm wrong or whether I'm right, one thing is now a certainty: Any claimed crinoid stems and nautiloids that people have that I happen to see I will look at more closely, just for the POSSIBILITY of mistaken identities.

 

A useful exercise would be to provide better focused images in different light.  The second specimen might also be enhanced if photographed while damp.

[Calcivacation]

9 hours ago, Rockwood said:

The fossilization of soft bodied creatures is beyond most folks knowledge. It's a highly specialized field.

 

I'm not disputing that. But, in the text of the book on caterpillars, I notice that there is no mention of how long they have been around, no mention of the ones that have been found fossilized in amber, etc. Granted that going into significant detail about such aspects was likely beyond the intended scope of the book, to provide no historical context and perspective whatsoever seems rather odd. The fact that there is not even one paragraph about where they fit into the accepted chronology of life as it has existed over the course of time on the planet seems like a rather large omission.

 

Oh well....I don't want to stray too far off topic here.

 

I am not completely convinced that I am right about my finds. At present, comparisons to crinoid stems and nautiloids just don't seem to match up well enough. For now, I think it's best left as an open question as to definitive identification.

 

I have to get a new phone in a couple of months and we'll see if whatever I get has a better camera. If anyone would like to suggest a good stand alone digital camera that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and that has been shown to be more useful than others for photographing things like fossils, I would be glad to hear about it.

 

For the record, in my other post about the possible fossil footprint, when I mentioned about 'tyranny of the majority' it was within the general context of expressing personal philosophy, and not directed at this site or at any individual members who have expressed their opinions. But, I should have specifically stated that, in order to avoid any misunderstandings. For the fact that I didn't, I do apologize. It's truly not my intention to be combative. I do appreciate all of the opinions, even though I do not agree with them at the present time. I don't rule out the possibility of being assimilated at some point in the future. 

 

David