2 fossil caterpillars?

[Fossildude19]

From Wikipedia:

 

"Fossils

In 2019, a geometrid moth caterpillar dating back to the Eocene epoch, approximately 44 million years ago, was found preserved in Baltic amber. It was described under Eogeometer vadens. Previously, another fossil dating back approximately 125 million years was found in Lebanese amber."

[JohnJ]

 

12 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

 

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

 

 

 

David, the camera on your current phone seems adequate.  Often better photos can be achieved adjusting the distance to the specimen.  Raise the tape measure up to the same plane as the fossil.  It might be easier for you to see the focus.  Take new photos in sunlight or outdoors.  

[Randyw]

As fossildude beat me to it. I’ll just add my 2 cents. As far as i know (from past researching) there are no fossil caterpillers ever found and only 5 examples being found in amber. The oldest being 145 million years old.

edit: in old amber. There are several found in younger amber but only a few older then 40 million years.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Randyw
Clarify statement

[Randyw]

There have been a few trying to be sold or posted online but in all cases they have been proved to have beeen misidentified later. I even saw a carved one online a while back LOL!

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Calcivacation said:

'tyranny of the majority'

I doubt it would be difficult to find a truck load of contrarians around here. About the first post I made was to (successfully I might add) challenge a well respected PHD expert. ' been that way since I was a toddler. 

[Mainefossils]

Interesting finds @Calcivacation! 

 

I agree with all that has been said above. The first specimen looks like a flattened orthocone nautiloid, while the second specimen appears to be the cross section of a crinoid stem. While I understand that caterpillars are reminiscent of these fossils, it would be highly unlikely for it to occur. To start, such fossils are usually preserved in finer sediment, while the matrix of your fossils appears to be quite coarse. In other well known sites where soft-preservation occurs (Burgess Shale, Wheeler Shale, etc.), the fossil is generally preserved in fine sediment that metamorphoses into rocks such as shale and slate. Also, the area you are living in (New York) is known for its Paleozoic fossils. Nautiloids and crinoids are well represented in quite a few formations, while fossil caterpillars (preserved in sediments) have never been found. The statistics themselves are an indicator of what your fossil could be. 

 

Furthermore, your two caterpillar lookalikes are both preserved in different ways. Your first (the probable nautiloid) is flattened, while your second (the probable crinoid stem) is a cross-section. While I think that a caterpillar would likely be preserved flattened (as in your first fossil), I think it is highly unlikely that a caterpillar would be preserved inflated (as in your second specimen). If a caterpillar was preserved inflated, the cross section of it would look quite a bit different from what your specimen shows. The "cuticle" is too thick, and the "chambers" would not be present.

 

You might want to take a look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerstätte. It gives some general details on the type of soft-body preservation that would preserve a caterpillar. I also found a thread (linked below) on orthocone nautiloids that could be helpful - the 10th post down shows a picture of a nautiloid preserved in a similar way. 

 

Hope this helps, and Happy Hunting! 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mainefossils

[Paleorunner]

24 minutes ago, Mainefossils said:

 

To start, such fossils are usually preserved in finer sediment, while the matrix of your fossils appears to be quite coarse. In other well known sites where soft-preservation occurs (Burgess Shale, Wheeler Shale, etc.)

 

 

 

In complete agreement, I think impossible that the sedimentation of these two rocks (matrix) could have fossilized soft organisms.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Paleorunner

[Calcivacation]

1 hour ago, Mainefossils said:

Interesting finds @Calcivacation! 

 

I agree with all that has been said above. The first specimen looks like a flattened orthocone nautiloid, while the second specimen appears to be the cross section of a crinoid stem. While I understand that caterpillars are reminiscent of these fossils, it would be highly unlikely for it to occur. To start, such fossils are usually preserved in finer sediment, while the matrix of your fossils appears to be quite coarse. In other well known sites where soft-preservation occurs (Burgess Shale, Wheeler Shale, etc.), the fossil is generally preserved in fine sediment that metamorphoses into rocks such as shale and slate. Also, the area you are living in (New York) is known for its Paleozoic fossils. Nautiloids and crinoids are well represented in quite a few formations, while fossil caterpillars (preserved in sediments) have never been found. The statistics themselves are an indicator of what your fossil could be. 

 

Furthermore, your two caterpillar lookalikes are both preserved in different ways. Your first (the probable nautiloid) is flattened, while your second (the probable crinoid stem) is a cross-section. While I think that a caterpillar would likely be preserved flattened (as in your first fossil), I think it is highly unlikely that a caterpillar would be preserved inflated (as in your second specimen). If a caterpillar was preserved inflated, the cross section of it would look quite a bit different from what your specimen shows. The "cuticle" is too thick, and the "chambers" would not be present.

 

You might want to take a look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerstätte. It gives some general details on the type of soft-body preservation that would preserve a caterpillar. I also found a thread (linked below) on orthocone nautiloids that could be helpful - the 10th post down shows a picture of a nautiloid preserved in a similar way. 

 

Hope this helps, and Happy Hunting! 

 

 

 

Thanks a lot. That image in the 10th post, along with a very particular image of a crinoid stem that I happened to find online, sealed the deal.

 

Thanks to all.

 

I will see if the weather cooperates tomorrow to possibly try for better photos of the potential footprint.

[piranha]

Although extremely rare, there are a few fossil caterpillars reported from non-amber sedimentary deposits.

 

 

text and figures from:

 

Leakey, L.S.B. 1952
Lower Miocene Invertebrates from Kenya.
Nature, 169:624-625

 

Grimaldi, D., Engel, M.S. 2005
Evolution of the Insects.
Cambridge University Press, 755 pp.

 

Grande, L. 1984
Paleontology of the Green River Formation, with a Review of the Fish Fauna.

Geological Survey of Wyoming, Bulletin, 63:1-333

[Calcivacation]

2 hours ago, piranha said:

Although extremely rare, there are a few fossil caterpillars reported from non-amber sedimentary deposits.

 

 

text and figures from:

 

Leakey, L.S.B. 1952
Lower Miocene Invertebrates from Kenya.
Nature, 169:624-625

 

Grimaldi, D., Engel, M.S. 2005
Evolution of the Insects.
Cambridge University Press, 755 pp.

 

Grande, L. 1984
Paleontology of the Green River Formation, with a Review of the Fish Fauna.

Geological Survey of Wyoming, Bulletin, 63:1-333

 

Thanks....very fascinating! That is info that shouldn't get lost in the mists of time.

[fifbrindacier]

Hi, i agree your first fossil is an orthocone.

 

[Calcivacation]

I was sorting through other finds from this past summer and found another orthocone, after doing the white vinegar soak to remove gravel:

 

 

[Bringing Fossils to Life]

Nice cephalopod!!!!! I only have one that shows the internal anatomy of the shell, a Spyroceras more than an inch across. New York is the place to look, though (indeed, my Spyroceras was in gravel that might have been introduced from New York).

[fifbrindacier]

@caterpillar ?

Edited February 5, 2022 by fifbrindacier