Raistlin Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I am testing my new handheld magnifying camera/video that does 500X. http://www.ebay.com/...984.m1497.l2649 The fossil in question is roughly 1 1/2 CM long, I forgot to write down zoom of photos sorry. The fossil is Decorah/Plattin, Ordivician, found in Jackson Missouri at the same site as the cephalopod while at work. This is the best I can do as far as getting a close enough shot to see any detail. It is too small for a regular camera without a macro lens. First the up close detail of one area. And here is what I believe is the arm. I am not sure what it could be, I have never seen anything like it. A friend who knows more than me is also stumped on this one. Edited August 31, 2012 by Raistlin RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Those are pretty good pix,I'll have to look at one of those. But I think they may be closer to 50x than 500x. Some of the camera advertising gets a little exuberant. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) No I did not take it to 500X there would be no more detail as it would be blown out way too far lol. I forgot to write down my zoom sorry. The fossil in question is roughly 1 1/2 CM long. Sorry for not including that in my first post. I was sort of excited about the camera lol. I edited the first post to state size and that I did not write down magnification. Edited August 31, 2012 by Raistlin RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 How 'bout crinoid anal sac? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Hmm I have never seen one of those before. I can only find one or two photos online that is listed as that. Those I did find do look simular they are far bigger though so it is easier to see detail lol. I will have to keep searching for some images. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 I believe you might be right. While not finding a great deal of photos of the anal sack, I am seeing some nice crinoid heads/cups that are showing some nice deatil to little bits I am finding in the rock. I will try to get some of those bits posted up on this thread some time soon. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Here are a few other things I have found. This is next to .5mm rule. This I believe is a Cornulites due to the longitudinal lines on it. Though I guess it could be a tentaculites. This one is 7mm long. This one is on a bivalve and is 3 mm long. Here is a Cornulites I found in a different location that still needs prepping. Sorry for some blur as I said this is something I am still learning to steady and take the photo at the same time. For the price though and it being portable is worth it. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
araucaria1959 Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I agree with Cornulites; Tentaculites is straight over its full length. araucaria1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 I agree with Cornulites; Tentaculites is straight over its full length. araucaria1959 At least I got one of them right lol. ID is not my strong point even more so when it comes to the small stuff. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Given the apparent 'thinness' of the specimen, it doesn't seem like crinoid anal sack to me. For that, I'd normally expect much more 3D to it. This looks more bryozoan-ish, and if it weren't for the apparent complex pattern I see here, that's what I'd say it is. If it's not bryozoan, I guess I'd start looking back at the echinoderms again to see if anything turns up in that neighborhood. It does sort of look like some of the echinoid and/or sea star ambulacral plating and pores that I've seen in some of the Cretaceous items I've collected, but I have no idea what the equivalents looked like in the Ordovician. . ____________________ 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 More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Looks pretty 3-D to me...if it can be prepped out a bit, it would help. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 That may be true. In these photos, it just looks like a 'layer' to me. Not that the layer itself isn't 3D, but you know....like a bryozoan. It really does look more sea star or echinoid-like to me though with that pattern. . ____________________ 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 More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 Given the apparent 'thinness' of the specimen, it doesn't seem like crinoid anal sack to me. For that, I'd normally expect much more 3D to it. This looks more bryozoan-ish, and if it weren't for the apparent complex pattern I see here, that's what I'd say it is. If it's not bryozoan, I guess I'd start looking back at the echinoderms again to see if anything turns up in that neighborhood. It does sort of look like some of the echinoid and/or sea star ambulacral plating and pores that I've seen in some of the Cretaceous items I've collected, but I have no idea what the equivalents looked like in the Ordovician. A friend said he thought it looked a bit bryozoan as well. However, like you the pattern it has makes him think it is not. As delicate as it is I am afraid to do much prep on it. This came from the same area where just air cleaned a lot of the stuff off. This has in fact been hit with just air and it cleaned it up a lot. When looking though a microscope to prep it there seems to be a lot of granulation around the fossil and you can sort of see that in the photos. Looking at it in person it appears to be no more than 2mm thick at its thickest point which happens to be the center point with it narrowing down at the edges. This is why my initial thought was starfish arm. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Interesting ... Looks very much like one of my first mystery fossils Arm plates of disparid inadunates crinoid Pennsylvanian Reference: LINK Found them while sifting fossiliferous shale They are TINY !! Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) The suggested star fish arm ... I'm going to throw my hat in the ring agreeing with Auspex ... this is probably crinoid. Probably an anal tube. I remember recently finding one partially exposed and swore it was a star fish arm. Didn't take too much preparation to reveal it was s crinoid anal tube. The specimen I found was not as weathered. Edited September 1, 2012 by Indy Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Possible Echinoid spine ?? Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Haha my you are good. I found this stuff with a flash light at night and some moving of lose soil with a ruler. I can see the basic shape, but magnification brings out the real detail. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Haha my you are good. I found this stuff with a flash light at night and some moving of lose soil with a ruler. I can see the basic shape, but magnification brings out the real detail. That soil (shale) is fossiliferous Next time your at that site ...collect a small bucket of it and sift it at home. You will be surprised at all the "goodies" you will find. Edited September 2, 2012 by Indy Flash from the Past (Show Us Your Fossils)MAPS Fossil Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 That soil (shale) is fossiliferous Next time your at that site ...collect a small bucket of it and sift it at home. You will be surprised at all the "goodies" you will find. Well it is from a rock behind where I work, on their land and gated in lol. I cannot break the rock any more but I can collect lose stuff. I scooped up a cup full of some of the dirt to bring home but have not been through it yet. It is Ordovician in age and Decorah/Plattin (most likely Plattin) formation. RobertSoutheast, MO 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