Possible fossil?

[erik simpson]

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 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.

I found it while looking for Wyattia, but I have doubt that it's that. Constructive suggestions welcome.

[John Harshman]

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.

[erik simpson]

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.

[erik simpson]

I also should add that I'm not convinced it's a fossil at all.

[John Harshman]

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?

[jillery]

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.

[jillery]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 21:25:19 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:36:56 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
><eastsi...@gmail.com> 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 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.
>>
>>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.

I see I posted this one too late. Mea Culpa.

[jillery]

I acknowledge these would be anecdotal, but Googling "images of
fossils in quartzite" provides several plausible examples.

[erik simpson]

The most productive Ediacaran fossils beds in Austrailia (The Ediacara Hills) are in Rawnsley Quartizes. They aren't overly metamorphosed and are
pretty grainy. When equivalent specimens from the Russion White Sea assemblage, the latter are muhmore detailed. Even so, the Australian fossil
provide resolution at the 1mm scale.

[John Harshman]

I suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?

[erik simpson]

yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wasting
your time looking for fossils.

[erik simpson]

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

[John Harshman]

Namacalathus is known only from Namibia, isn't it?

[erik simpson]

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.

[John Harshman]

Perhaps you need to bring that to the attention of a Precambrian
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.

[erik simpson]

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.

[jillery]

Your narrative here hints at possibilities that echo off the discovery
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.

[erik simpson]

The prospects for fossils in the Whites aren't all that bleak. It's well-examined ground, with pretty rich deposits of early
Cambrian trilobites, helicoplacoids, acheocyathids, brachipods, hyolithids, etc. These are found higher in the stratigraphic
column, so haven't been as damaged by intrusive granites as the Ediacaran layers. Besides, it's just fun poking around
at 12000 ft, always cool (sometimes lots more than that!) and as I say, beautiful.

[Peter Nyikos]

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
> > > > <jhar...@pacbell.net> 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 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 holdfast.

> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 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.

> > > >>>> 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.
> > > I suppose I've only encountered high-grade quartzite?
> > yhe rule of thumb i've always heard is that if there's lots of sparkle you're wasting
> > 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

It 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

[erik simpson]

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.

[John Harshman]

Also, halkieriid fossils would be expected to show a scleritome, not in
evidence here.

> 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.

"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
tell squat from photos.

[erik simpson]

As for bilaterian characters, it can't be ruled out. Lots of little shelly tubular
things have indicated bilaterian inside, seen by tomography. Pirytization helps
a lot, and as luck would have it. similar fossils found near Las Vegas have that.

[Peter Nyikos]

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.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

Still, Namacalathus is a lophotrochozoan, so there goes a bit of the
explosion's uniqueness. Kimberella too, of course.

[erik simpson]

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.

[John Harshman]

Yes, though bilaterians are the part of the explosion most folks are
interested in.

[erik simpson]

Sure, bilaterians R us. Still, the presence of relatively highly derived cnidarians strongly suggests the the divergence
of cnidarians and bilarterian happened even earlier.

[Peter Nyikos]

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

[John Harshman]

You should probably read the original paper on this, which I'm pretty
sure you could find by googling Namacalathus lophotrochozoan. Let me
know if that doesn't work and I'll find it for you. But you can do
better than Wikipedia.

[erik simpson]

From previous post:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf2933

[John Harshman]

Curious. This paper is cited in the Wikipedia article, just not in the
place you would think.

[erik simpson]

The Wiki entry is strange, It also has a reference that I'd missed

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4650157/

that also identifies it as a lophophorate.

[Inyo]

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 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.

>
> 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

[Inyo]

On 9/12/2022 10:48 AM, Inyo wrote:

> Some references of regional pertinenence:

Huh? I meant pertinence, of course.

[Inyo]

On 9/12/2022 10:59 AM, Inyo wrote:

> 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):

Actually, that's not quite correct. The archaeocyathid-bearing
limestones that begin at the base of the Poleta Formation lie roughly
6,100 feet stratigraphically above the base of the Reed Dolomite.

[erik simpson]

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.

[Peter Nyikos]

Did you ever try to get in touch with Ben?


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

No, I haven't. I do have input from another "pro", but it confirms what feedback I've previously had. It
is probably an example of "aspidella" which is a "form taxon", i.e. it's a name with no phylogenetic information
content. It's probably a holdfast with a stalk, which if it had better detail might be interesting. Looking for
better specimens will probably have to wait a while; the road is closed by yesterday's snow storm, and it might
not be accessible before next summer.