https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may resemble) would survive.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to be
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:36:56 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson ><[email protected]> wrote:be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
Neither your comments nor your picture hint at scale, which would help
to constrain any hints you might get.
As for me, I confess my
amateur skills have been fooled often enough by fossil Rorschach tests
to even hazard a guess. But I agree it's a tantalizing pattern.
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >quartzite?
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in quartzite?
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshmanto be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition >>>>> from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may >>>>> resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some. >>>
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition >>>>> from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may >>>>> resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those >> had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images ofI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition >>>>> from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may >>>>> resemble) would survive.
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils >> (10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >> quartzite?
yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images ofI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition >>>>>>>> from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may >>>>>>>> resemble) would survive.
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those >>>>> had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils >>>>> (10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >>>>> quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of Namacalthus,
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
On 9/2/22 5:11 PM, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils >>>>> (10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >>>>> quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of Namacalthus,
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933Namacalathus is known only from Namibia, isn't it?
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 9:05:09 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On 9/2/22 5:11 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
Namacalathus is known only from Namibia, isn't it?yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition >>>>>>>>>> from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may >>>>>>>>>> resemble) would survive.
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils >>>>>>> (10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >>>>>>> quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of Namacalthus,
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
No, it has sparse global distribution including at least Canada, Paraguayand and Siberia. There may be others, I'd have to look
it up. I don't think it's been found in the California-Nevada Ediacara deposits, and it's more than possible that this
rock I found doesn't pass muster either. It's worth a look.
On 9/2/22 10:08 PM, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 9:05:09 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/2/22 5:11 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
Namacalathus is known only from Namibia, isn't it?yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with anyVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>>>>>>
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of >>>>>> fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of Namacalthus,
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
No, it has sparse global distribution including at least Canada, Paraguayand and Siberia. There may be others, I'd have to lookPerhaps you need to bring that to the attention of a Precambrian paleontologist. Maybe somebody at LACM? (Don't know where you are,
it up. I don't think it's been found in the California-Nevada Ediacara deposits, and it's more than possible that this
rock I found doesn't pass muster either. It's worth a look.
exactly.) If it extends the range of Namacalathus, it's a real find. If
it's a bilaterian fossil of any sort, ditto.
On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 6:33:56 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
On 9/2/22 10:08 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 9:05:09 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/2/22 5:11 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >> >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >> >>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
Perhaps you need to bring that to the attention of a PrecambrianNamacalathus is known only from Namibia, isn't it?yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >> >>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of Namacalthus,
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
No, it has sparse global distribution including at least Canada, Paraguayand and Siberia. There may be others, I'd have to look
it up. I don't think it's been found in the California-Nevada Ediacara deposits, and it's more than possible that this
rock I found doesn't pass muster either. It's worth a look.
paleontologist. Maybe somebody at LACM? (Don't know where you are,
exactly.) If it extends the range of Namacalathus, it's a real find. If
it's a bilaterian fossil of any sort, ditto.
I have, but I haven't heard back yet. IF it is a valid fossil, it'd be at least of some general interest, but a
less ambiguous specimen is probably necessary. It wouldn't be a great surprise. There are much better
places in Nevada with exposures of the same formations that have been treated to less geological stresses
than in the White Mountains. No lagerstatte there, for sure. I go there because I live at the upper end of the Owens
Valley, only a couple of hours away, and it's a place of nearly unearthly beauty, one of California's tallest mountains
and some of the oldest living trees on earth. I'd go there frequently if there weren't any fossils.
On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT), erik simpsonand appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 6:33:56 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/2/22 10:08 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 9:05:09 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >> >> On 9/2/22 5:11 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop)
Perhaps you need to bring that to the attention of a PrecambrianNamacalathus is known only from Namibia, isn't it?yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with anyVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >> >>>>>>>
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of Namacalthus,
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
No, it has sparse global distribution including at least Canada, Paraguayand and Siberia. There may be others, I'd have to look
it up. I don't think it's been found in the California-Nevada Ediacara deposits, and it's more than possible that this
rock I found doesn't pass muster either. It's worth a look.
paleontologist. Maybe somebody at LACM? (Don't know where you are,
exactly.) If it extends the range of Namacalathus, it's a real find. If >> it's a bilaterian fossil of any sort, ditto.
I have, but I haven't heard back yet. IF it is a valid fossil, it'd be at least of some general interest, but aYour narrative here hints at possibilities that echo off the discovery
less ambiguous specimen is probably necessary. It wouldn't be a great surprise. There are much better
places in Nevada with exposures of the same formations that have been treated to less geological stresses
than in the White Mountains. No lagerstatte there, for sure. I go there because I live at the upper end of the Owens
Valley, only a couple of hours away, and it's a place of nearly unearthly beauty, one of California's tallest mountains
and some of the oldest living trees on earth. I'd go there frequently if there weren't any fossils.
of Charnia, the first recognized Precambrian fossil. Before Charnia,
it was assumed rocks that old could not have fossils. I imagine even
the remote possibility of finding fossils in rocks that "everybody
knows" can't have fossils helps to inspire you to pursue this line of inquiry.
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.I suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
your time looking for fossils.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.I suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast, does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On 9/5/22 5:33 PM, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with anyVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>>>>>>
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of >>>>>> fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast,
does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middleAlso, halkieriid fossils would be expected to show a scleritome, not in evidence here.
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column.
Word from a"Probably is a fossil" is a nice enough affirmation. I wonder if it's preserved enough to identify any bilaterian features. I generally can't
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
tell squat from photos.
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition >>>>>>>>>> from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may >>>>>>>>>> resemble) would survive.
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?Very few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils >>>>>>> (10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >>>>>>> quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast, >> does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column.
Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:and appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop)
I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with anyVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.I suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast,
does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: >>> On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with anyVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>>>>>>>
macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even those
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils >>>>>>>> (10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in >>>>>>>> quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast,
does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any >>>>>>>> macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even thoseVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>>>>>>>
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of >>>>>>> fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast,
does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from beforeStill, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 8:52:45 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and
explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.It looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingI suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?From my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any >>>>>>>>>> macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even thoseVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>>>>>>>>>
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of >>>>>>>>> fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast,
does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article.
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian. >> Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the
Not to mention Auroralumina attenboroughii (~560 MYA) as a crown-group cnidarian. We haven't
seen the free-swimming larval stages of whatever was in the water column, but I'll bet Auroralumina did.
On 9/7/22 8:30 AM, erik simpson wrote:and appears to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organism attached to the substrate with a
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 8:52:45 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:11:22 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:16:56 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 6:35 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 18:20:24 -0700, John Harshman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/1/22 4:10 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:59:39 PM UTC-7, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/22 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop)
Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of theIt looks like you may be on the right track here. The circular depression at the top of your photo,I do have to wonder if any macrofossils would survive the transition
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
from sandstone to quartzite. Have you found any that you're sure
actually are fossils? I'm not even sure a concretion (which that may
resemble) would survive.
My current best guess is that it's poorly preserved specimens and bits of specimens of [Namacalathus],yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wastingFrom my own experience, I've never seen a quartzite with any >>>>>>>>>> macroscopic features other than preserved quartz cobbles, and even thoseVery few microfossils for sure. I neglected to give the scale for the photo. Counting the "holdfast", it's slightly more than 10mm.
Lots of stuff that size can make the transition. Well, not "lots", some.
I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all. >>>>>>>>>>
had very fuzzy edges. So I'm surprised that there are any macrofossils
(10mm counts as macro to me) at all. But do you know of any fossils in
quartzite?
I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of >>>>>>>>> fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples. >>>>>>>> I suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
your time looking for fossils.
a very late Ediacaran animal of lophotrochozoan affinities. I'll be off to look for more this Fall.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
which you mentioned in your OP [see above] and conjectured to be a holdfast,
does look a lot like some of the pictures in the Science article. >>>>>
The depression leading down from the "holdfast" ends in
a concave upward arch near the bottom in your picture.
Reversing, the overall effect is that of a garden trowel
whose handle tapers off upwards and ends in the "holdfast".
Googling lophotrochozoa took me to something that
I think would be worth comparing with your photo,
including everything in the preceding paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halkieria_uncropped.jpg
What do you think?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.
Not to mention Auroralumina attenboroughii (~560 MYA) as a crown-group cnidarian. We haven'tYes, though bilaterians are the part of the explosion most folks are interested in.
seen the free-swimming larval stages of whatever was in the water column, but I'll bet Auroralumina did.
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:52:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the
explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.
Where do you get your information on Namacalathus? Wikipedia
is mighty tentative about it, and the reproduction they give
looks unlike anything I've seen, although its "head" reminds me
of the scolex of a tapeworm.
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:52:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.Where do you get your information on Namacalathus? Wikipedia
is mighty tentative about it, and the reproduction they give
looks unlike anything I've seen, although its "head" reminds me
of the scolex of a tapeworm.
Peter Nyikos
On 9/8/22 7:47 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:52:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian.
Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of theWhere do you get your information on Namacalathus? Wikipedia
explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.
is mighty tentative about it, and the reproduction they give
looks unlike anything I've seen, although its "head" reminds me
of the scolex of a tapeworm.
Peter Nyikos
From previous post:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933Curious. This paper is cited in the Wikipedia article, just not in the
place you would think.
On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:52:45 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/6/22 3:32 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:Where do you get your information on Namacalathus? Wikipedia
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:33:30 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but the age is wrong. Halkieriids are lower-middle
Cambrian critters, much higher in the local stratigraphic column. Word from a
"real" (professional) paleontologist specializing in Ediacaran research is that the
thing I found is "probably not Namacalathus", "probably is a fossil", "is not well enough
preserved to make a likely identification". I "shouldn't be discouraged" (I'm not), and
"would find the Mt Dunfee location more promising". Mt Dunfee is farther away, about
2-3 day mini-expedition, and it's much lower and right now very hot. I'm in no hurry,
so I'll probably get out there later.
That suits me just fine, because the Cambrian explosion would lose a wee bit
of its uniqueness if a halkieriid were to be found in those strata.
But keep in mind that until very recently, bryozoans were not known from before
the Ordovician, but now it seems that they existed in the Lower Cambrian. >>
Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the
explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.
is mighty tentative about it, and the reproduction they give
looks unlike anything I've seen, although its "head" reminds me
of the scolex of a tapeworm.
Peter Nyikos
From previous post:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
Some references of regional pertinenence:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1305300
A PRE-TRILOBITE SHELLY FAUNA FROM THE WHITE-INYO REGION OF EASTERN
CALIFORNI AAND WESTERN NEVADA
The original paper regarding Wyattia:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1719625
Precambrian Mollusc-like Fossils from Inyo County, California
https://research.nhm.org/pdfs/33847/33847-001.pdf
Guidebook for Field Trip To Precambrian-Cambrian Succession White-Inyo Mountains, California
And of course my own web page; includes information about
archaeocyathids in the lower Cambrian Poleta Formation, White Mountains, California (about 7,400 feet stratigraphically above the base of the
Reed Dolomite):
Early Cambrian Fossls Of Westgard Pass, California http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/westgardpass/westgardpass.html
On 9/12/2022 10:48 AM, Inyo wrote:
And of course my own web page; includes information about
archaeocyathids in the lower Cambrian Poleta Formation, White Mountains,
California (about 7,400 feet stratigraphically above the base of the
Reed Dolomite):
Early Cambrian Fossls Of Westgard Pass, California
http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/westgardpass/westgardpass.html
On 9/1/2022 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears to
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
I have no idea, really. But there is some evidence of bioturbation along
the surface of the rock--those squiggly lines likely represent animal activity of some kind. Note that unambiguous, convincing 550 million year-old animal trails were recently found in China (Yilingia
spiciformis, 2019--possibly related to panarthropods or annelids), a discovery that agrees with molecular clock analysis, which predicted
that segmented, mobile, bilaterally symmetric animals should first
appear in the Ediacaran Period. Profuse annelid and presumed arthropodal activity tracks can of course be found in quartzites of the early
Cambrian Campito, Poleta, and Harkless Formations of the White-Inyo Mountains stratigraphic complex.
By the way, Wyattia could well be a senior synonym for the late
Ediacaran Cloudina, which exhibits budding and branching structures
similar to modern serpulid annelids.
In a previous post, I see where you've contacted a specialist for identification. Two other folks you might consider sending the
photograph to would be Dr. James Hagadorn (Denver Museum of Nature and Science) and/or Dr. Ben Waggoner (I think he's still at the University
of Central Arkansas)--both are noted Ediacaran specialits.
Some references of regional pertinenence:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1305300
A PRE-TRILOBITE SHELLY FAUNA FROM THE WHITE-INYO REGION OF EASTERN
CALIFORNI AAND WESTERN NEVADA
The original paper regarding Wyattia:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1719625
Precambrian Mollusc-like Fossils from Inyo County, California
https://research.nhm.org/pdfs/33847/33847-001.pdf
Guidebook for Field Trip To Precambrian-Cambrian Succession White-Inyo Mountains, California
And of course my own web page; includes information about
archaeocyathids in the lower Cambrian Poleta Formation, White Mountains, California (about 7,400 feet stratigraphically above the base of the
Reed Dolomite):
Early Cambrian Fossls Of Westgard Pass, California http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/westgardpass/westgardpass.html
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:25 AM UTC-7, Inyo wrote:to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
On 9/1/2022 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
I have no idea, really. But there is some evidence of bioturbation along the surface of the rock--those squiggly lines likely represent animal activity of some kind. Note that unambiguous, convincing 550 million year-old animal trails were recently found in China (Yilingia
spiciformis, 2019--possibly related to panarthropods or annelids), a discovery that agrees with molecular clock analysis, which predicted
that segmented, mobile, bilaterally symmetric animals should first
appear in the Ediacaran Period. Profuse annelid and presumed arthropodal activity tracks can of course be found in quartzites of the early
Cambrian Campito, Poleta, and Harkless Formations of the White-Inyo Mountains stratigraphic complex.
By the way, Wyattia could well be a senior synonym for the late
Ediacaran Cloudina, which exhibits budding and branching structures similar to modern serpulid annelids.
In a previous post, I see where you've contacted a specialist for identification. Two other folks you might consider sending the
photograph to would be Dr. James Hagadorn (Denver Museum of Nature and Science) and/or Dr. Ben Waggoner (I think he's still at the University
of Central Arkansas)--both are noted Ediacaran specialits.
Some references of regional pertinenence:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1305300
A PRE-TRILOBITE SHELLY FAUNA FROM THE WHITE-INYO REGION OF EASTERN CALIFORNI AAND WESTERN NEVADA
The original paper regarding Wyattia:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1719625
Precambrian Mollusc-like Fossils from Inyo County, California
https://research.nhm.org/pdfs/33847/33847-001.pdf
Guidebook for Field Trip To Precambrian-Cambrian Succession White-Inyo Mountains, California
And of course my own web page; includes information about
archaeocyathids in the lower Cambrian Poleta Formation, White Mountains, California (about 7,400 feet stratigraphically above the base of the
Reed Dolomite):
Early Cambrian Fossls Of Westgard Pass, California http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/westgardpass/westgardpass.html
Thanks for the tips. Ben Waggoner used to be active here, but hasn''t been for many years now. He doesn't seem to be too active lately, but we'll see.
On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 7:02:44 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:to be quartzite with a large lime content. The fossil(?) is the roughly circular depression above a rod-cap structure below it. Not certain that they represent a single structure, but suggestive of an organismattached to the substrate with a holdfast.
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:25 AM UTC-7, Inyo wrote:
On 9/1/2022 2:36 PM, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=a6j5f1v5d1
I've posted this pic to my FaceBook 'friends' (a purposely very restricted group), and none have so far come up with any suggestions. Realizing
that sbp is maybe even more restricted, I'll stick it here too.
The rock is from the transition zone between Reed Dolomite ant Deep Springs formations (Reed is Edaicaran, ~560 - ~545?, Deep Springs bridges the latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian, ~545 - 530 MYA.) It was found in float (non-outcrop) and appears
I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.
I have no idea, really. But there is some evidence of bioturbation along the surface of the rock--those squiggly lines likely represent animal activity of some kind. Note that unambiguous, convincing 550 million year-old animal trails were recently found in China (Yilingia spiciformis, 2019--possibly related to panarthropods or annelids), a discovery that agrees with molecular clock analysis, which predicted that segmented, mobile, bilaterally symmetric animals should first appear in the Ediacaran Period. Profuse annelid and presumed arthropodal activity tracks can of course be found in quartzites of the early Cambrian Campito, Poleta, and Harkless Formations of the White-Inyo Mountains stratigraphic complex.
By the way, Wyattia could well be a senior synonym for the late Ediacaran Cloudina, which exhibits budding and branching structures similar to modern serpulid annelids.
In a previous post, I see where you've contacted a specialist for identification. Two other folks you might consider sending the photograph to would be Dr. James Hagadorn (Denver Museum of Nature and Science) and/or Dr. Ben Waggoner (I think he's still at the University of Central Arkansas)--both are noted Ediacaran specialits.
Some references of regional pertinenence:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1305300
A PRE-TRILOBITE SHELLY FAUNA FROM THE WHITE-INYO REGION OF EASTERN CALIFORNI AAND WESTERN NEVADA
The original paper regarding Wyattia:
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1719625
Precambrian Mollusc-like Fossils from Inyo County, California
https://research.nhm.org/pdfs/33847/33847-001.pdf
Guidebook for Field Trip To Precambrian-Cambrian Succession White-Inyo Mountains, California
And of course my own web page; includes information about archaeocyathids in the lower Cambrian Poleta Formation, White Mountains, California (about 7,400 feet stratigraphically above the base of the Reed Dolomite):
Early Cambrian Fossls Of Westgard Pass, California http://inyo2.coffeecup.com/westgardpass/westgardpass.html
Thanks for the tips. Ben Waggoner used to be active here, but hasn''t been for many years now. He doesn't seem to be too active lately, but we'll see.Did you ever try to get in touch with Ben?
Peter Nyikos
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:43:47 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,104 |
