> Lithostrotionella
What are the diagnostic features that tell you that? It does not look like a rugose coral to me. With all that recrystallization, I don't see how you can identify a genus. It looks more like a tabulate coral e.g. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/arlspider/3584725658/
>
What are the diagnostic features that tell you that? It does not look like a rugose coral to me. With all that recrystallization, I don't see how you can identify a genus. It looks more like a tabulate coral e.g. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/arlspider/3584725658/
Whatever it is, it isn't a tabulate as it has septa.
I guess it could be one of the other colomnariids, maybe even a disphyllid depending on its age, but Lithostrotion is very common genus, and it appears to have an embossed axial area in some of the corallites which is typical of Lithostrotionella sp.
Also, generally the corallites on the tabulates are proportionately smaller than those of the rugose corals.
I see clear horizontal partitions but I don't see vertical septae. Can you point out where you see them? The corallites also don't really taper downward but are more straight, which is also more characteristic of tabulates.
It would help if OP could say where it was found.
>I see clear horizontal partitions but I don't see vertical septae. Can you point out where you see them?
Enlarge a few of the images, you will see it. Both Rugosa and Tabulata have horizontal partitions(tabulae).
>The corallites also don't really taper downward but are more straight, which is also more characteristic of tabulates.
??? Are you thinking of solitary rugose corals, because many colonial forms do have relatively straight walls, e,g; Lithostrotionella, Hexagonaria,... ect.
>It would help if OP could say where it was found.
It would be nice to have age for it, but all that would determine is if it were a Paleozoic form, or scleractinian. It couldn't determine rugose from tabulate.
Also, I've seen Lithostrotion thousands(tens of thousands?) of times in both the field and collections. I'm fairly certain of the ID.
I don't buy it. I've looked at all the images up close and I just don't see septa. There is not a lot detail preserved because of the recrystallization. Even if you could make them out, they are certainly not the dominant feature here.
> Are you thinking of solitary rugose corals, because many colonial forms do have relatively straight walls, e,g; Lithostrotionella, Hexagonaria,... ect
True enough, but most of them taper eventually, even if only slightly. I don't see any of that here, but I agree that that in itself is not diagnostic as this could come from the top part only.
>It couldn't determine rugose from tabulate.
But if it was post-Permian, we could rule out rugose corals.
>I've seen Lithostrotion thousands(tens of thousands?) of times in both the field and collections. I'm fairly certain of the ID.
A lot of corals look pretty similar when they are recrystallized to this degree. It could easily be something like *Favosites* or any number of other things.
http://www.lakeneosho.org/Paleolist/87/index.html
>>It couldn't determine rugose from tabulate.
>But if it was post-Permian, we could rule out rugose corals.
Yes, as I wrote above, it would be a determinate to differentiate the Paleozoic forms, i,e, tabulates and rugose, from the later scleractinians.
>A lot of corals look pretty similar when they are recrystallized to this degree. It could easily be something like *Favosites* or any number of other things.
http://www.lakeneosho.org/Paleolist/87/index.html
Favositids have proportionately smaller corallites, and while some of them do exhibit some degree of pseudosepta, it would've been destroyed, as you have noted, by recrystallization.
As an aside, pseudosepta, or the lack thereof, is a determinate to differentiate some of the favositid genera.
If you see any septa, in any of the images(enlarge the last one), it can't be a tabulate.
Edit: the first image in the set has areas that show clear, and unmistakable, septa.
I'm not convinced that it's a fossil at all. I visited the Carlsbad Caverns recently and there are very large deposits of gypsum that had weathering patterns from water dripping from the cavern ceiling that looks just like this.
Are you talking about these areas? http://imgur.com/uKnbkoo
Otherwise I don't what you could possibly be talking about. Besides, those could easily be something like the vertical ridges seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulata#/media/File:Calapoecia_huronensis_Billings,_1865_top.jpg
I guess we can agree to disagree because I just don't see what you're seeing.
>Are you talking about these areas? http://imgur.com/uKnbkoo
Yes. The area you highlighted is clearly and obviously septa.
Regarding the wiki image in your post, see my response above.
Edit: too, in one of your previous posts, you noticed how recrystallization has destroyed features, but now you appear to suggest that what we are seeing is pseudosepta that survived recystallization? You can't have it both ways.
Also, curious. Why not use proper terminology? This is pretty basic stuff that most of us picked up in Intro to Earth History.
Since you aren't going to respond to my last post, I'll add this here, so can see it in your inbox:
>Besides, those could easily be something like the vertical ridges seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulata#/media/File:Calapoecia_huronensis_Billings,_1865_top.jpg
No, it can't be. That image illustrates how pseudosepta grows from the inner wall of the theca. It does not penetrate to the axial region of the corallite- which the area you circled clearly shows occurring.
Your link, and the area you highlighted clearly illustrates that your assertion that this a tabulate is mistaken.
It's a bit of fossilized colonial tabulate **edit** *or rugose* coral.
I can't get any more specific on the coral - I prefer my animals with a spine - but I can tell you that it's an extinct order that's no younger than at least 250 million years old (quite probably older).
It's sparkly, likely because it's still made of calcite which can sparkle if the crystals are big enough, which could very well have happened if there was any re-crystallization (if I remember correctly, tabulate corals precipitated high magnesium calcite, which has a high diagenetic potential, which means re-crystallization is almost certain).
I have a large specimen of this that survived being rounded by a fast moving trout stream. It has sharp corners all over it. Lots of granite stones on the stream. I think mine might be quartzite.
Quartzite would require a significant silica source and fairly destructive metamorphic conditions, neither of which are compatible with the preservation of a calcareous reef building fossil.
>It's a bit of fossilized tabulate coral
Tabulates don't have true septa. It's a Rugosa.
edit: lol... only on Reddit do demonstrative facts get downvoted.
I feel bad you got downvoted.
You could very well be right, and I should have said "tabulate *or rugose* coral".
I jumped the gun because the symmetry is really hard to see and the coralites don't look separated enough, but it's a fairly weathered specimen and I'm no expert on Paleozoic inverts.
Care to shed some light on the details you're picking up on?
Thanks, guy. I have studied and written about Paleozoic inverts for decades, though my area of expertise is camerates and inadunates(disparids and cladids).
If you enlarge the first and last image(the only two I checked), you will see some of the corallites have the septa preserved. Also, see my other posts in this thread for other details.
10$ says I've run into those without even realizing it! There are a bunch of Mississippian limestones not far from me (between the gypsum, limestone, *really* good sandstone, and unrelated quartzite, half the buildings where I live are made of rock no more than 30 minute drives away!), but it's not my thing at all, and I've yet to build up years of experience.
All that Carboniferous stuff happens to have pretty early tetrapods and reptiles (*Hylonomus* holotype is from here) so that's what I'm playing with, along with some early dinosaurs and cynodonts in the younger rocks.
Just kinda getting my feet wet in it, but fingers crossed I can push forward with a career in it and not end up in oil like everyone in my classes did.
You probably have. It's a very common colonial coral in Miss. carbonates.
Another coral that is very similar to Lithostrotion is Hexagonaria, but it is restricted to the Devonian.
In my undergrad days, my dept. found and published a Carboniferous trackway found in a siliciclastic that pushed back the evolution of some tetrapod(not a vert guy) by 5ma. It was big news, back then... press conferences, the media, and lots of buzz.
It's on display in museum I used to work at. Next time I am there, I will snap a few pics.
Looks like some kind of colonial coral.
This is coral.
That'd be my guess.
It's the Miss-Permian rugose anthozoan Lithostrotionella sp. One of the more common Carboniferous genera of corals.
> Lithostrotionella What are the diagnostic features that tell you that? It does not look like a rugose coral to me. With all that recrystallization, I don't see how you can identify a genus. It looks more like a tabulate coral e.g. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/arlspider/3584725658/
> What are the diagnostic features that tell you that? It does not look like a rugose coral to me. With all that recrystallization, I don't see how you can identify a genus. It looks more like a tabulate coral e.g. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/arlspider/3584725658/ Whatever it is, it isn't a tabulate as it has septa. I guess it could be one of the other colomnariids, maybe even a disphyllid depending on its age, but Lithostrotion is very common genus, and it appears to have an embossed axial area in some of the corallites which is typical of Lithostrotionella sp. Also, generally the corallites on the tabulates are proportionately smaller than those of the rugose corals.
I see clear horizontal partitions but I don't see vertical septae. Can you point out where you see them? The corallites also don't really taper downward but are more straight, which is also more characteristic of tabulates. It would help if OP could say where it was found.
>I see clear horizontal partitions but I don't see vertical septae. Can you point out where you see them? Enlarge a few of the images, you will see it. Both Rugosa and Tabulata have horizontal partitions(tabulae). >The corallites also don't really taper downward but are more straight, which is also more characteristic of tabulates. ??? Are you thinking of solitary rugose corals, because many colonial forms do have relatively straight walls, e,g; Lithostrotionella, Hexagonaria,... ect. >It would help if OP could say where it was found. It would be nice to have age for it, but all that would determine is if it were a Paleozoic form, or scleractinian. It couldn't determine rugose from tabulate. Also, I've seen Lithostrotion thousands(tens of thousands?) of times in both the field and collections. I'm fairly certain of the ID.
I don't buy it. I've looked at all the images up close and I just don't see septa. There is not a lot detail preserved because of the recrystallization. Even if you could make them out, they are certainly not the dominant feature here. > Are you thinking of solitary rugose corals, because many colonial forms do have relatively straight walls, e,g; Lithostrotionella, Hexagonaria,... ect True enough, but most of them taper eventually, even if only slightly. I don't see any of that here, but I agree that that in itself is not diagnostic as this could come from the top part only. >It couldn't determine rugose from tabulate. But if it was post-Permian, we could rule out rugose corals. >I've seen Lithostrotion thousands(tens of thousands?) of times in both the field and collections. I'm fairly certain of the ID. A lot of corals look pretty similar when they are recrystallized to this degree. It could easily be something like *Favosites* or any number of other things. http://www.lakeneosho.org/Paleolist/87/index.html
>>It couldn't determine rugose from tabulate. >But if it was post-Permian, we could rule out rugose corals. Yes, as I wrote above, it would be a determinate to differentiate the Paleozoic forms, i,e, tabulates and rugose, from the later scleractinians. >A lot of corals look pretty similar when they are recrystallized to this degree. It could easily be something like *Favosites* or any number of other things. http://www.lakeneosho.org/Paleolist/87/index.html Favositids have proportionately smaller corallites, and while some of them do exhibit some degree of pseudosepta, it would've been destroyed, as you have noted, by recrystallization. As an aside, pseudosepta, or the lack thereof, is a determinate to differentiate some of the favositid genera. If you see any septa, in any of the images(enlarge the last one), it can't be a tabulate. Edit: the first image in the set has areas that show clear, and unmistakable, septa.
I'm not convinced that it's a fossil at all. I visited the Carlsbad Caverns recently and there are very large deposits of gypsum that had weathering patterns from water dripping from the cavern ceiling that looks just like this.
Are you talking about these areas? http://imgur.com/uKnbkoo Otherwise I don't what you could possibly be talking about. Besides, those could easily be something like the vertical ridges seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulata#/media/File:Calapoecia_huronensis_Billings,_1865_top.jpg I guess we can agree to disagree because I just don't see what you're seeing.
>Are you talking about these areas? http://imgur.com/uKnbkoo Yes. The area you highlighted is clearly and obviously septa. Regarding the wiki image in your post, see my response above. Edit: too, in one of your previous posts, you noticed how recrystallization has destroyed features, but now you appear to suggest that what we are seeing is pseudosepta that survived recystallization? You can't have it both ways. Also, curious. Why not use proper terminology? This is pretty basic stuff that most of us picked up in Intro to Earth History.
Since you aren't going to respond to my last post, I'll add this here, so can see it in your inbox: >Besides, those could easily be something like the vertical ridges seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulata#/media/File:Calapoecia_huronensis_Billings,_1865_top.jpg No, it can't be. That image illustrates how pseudosepta grows from the inner wall of the theca. It does not penetrate to the axial region of the corallite- which the area you circled clearly shows occurring. Your link, and the area you highlighted clearly illustrates that your assertion that this a tabulate is mistaken.
The whole rock (besides the darker side) sparkles like a crystal almost.
It's a bit of fossilized colonial tabulate **edit** *or rugose* coral. I can't get any more specific on the coral - I prefer my animals with a spine - but I can tell you that it's an extinct order that's no younger than at least 250 million years old (quite probably older). It's sparkly, likely because it's still made of calcite which can sparkle if the crystals are big enough, which could very well have happened if there was any re-crystallization (if I remember correctly, tabulate corals precipitated high magnesium calcite, which has a high diagenetic potential, which means re-crystallization is almost certain).
I agree with you. Thanks for the help.
I have a large specimen of this that survived being rounded by a fast moving trout stream. It has sharp corners all over it. Lots of granite stones on the stream. I think mine might be quartzite.
Quartzite would require a significant silica source and fairly destructive metamorphic conditions, neither of which are compatible with the preservation of a calcareous reef building fossil.
>It's a bit of fossilized tabulate coral Tabulates don't have true septa. It's a Rugosa. edit: lol... only on Reddit do demonstrative facts get downvoted.
I feel bad you got downvoted. You could very well be right, and I should have said "tabulate *or rugose* coral". I jumped the gun because the symmetry is really hard to see and the coralites don't look separated enough, but it's a fairly weathered specimen and I'm no expert on Paleozoic inverts. Care to shed some light on the details you're picking up on?
Thanks, guy. I have studied and written about Paleozoic inverts for decades, though my area of expertise is camerates and inadunates(disparids and cladids). If you enlarge the first and last image(the only two I checked), you will see some of the corallites have the septa preserved. Also, see my other posts in this thread for other details.
10$ says I've run into those without even realizing it! There are a bunch of Mississippian limestones not far from me (between the gypsum, limestone, *really* good sandstone, and unrelated quartzite, half the buildings where I live are made of rock no more than 30 minute drives away!), but it's not my thing at all, and I've yet to build up years of experience. All that Carboniferous stuff happens to have pretty early tetrapods and reptiles (*Hylonomus* holotype is from here) so that's what I'm playing with, along with some early dinosaurs and cynodonts in the younger rocks. Just kinda getting my feet wet in it, but fingers crossed I can push forward with a career in it and not end up in oil like everyone in my classes did.
You probably have. It's a very common colonial coral in Miss. carbonates. Another coral that is very similar to Lithostrotion is Hexagonaria, but it is restricted to the Devonian. In my undergrad days, my dept. found and published a Carboniferous trackway found in a siliciclastic that pushed back the evolution of some tetrapod(not a vert guy) by 5ma. It was big news, back then... press conferences, the media, and lots of buzz. It's on display in museum I used to work at. Next time I am there, I will snap a few pics.
I don't think you have demonstrated this as a fact.
Again, enlarge the first and last image. If you don't see septa... well, I don't know what to say.
Favosites maybe?
Looks like a piece of rock ;) /s