Hyoliths VII: The New Blood

Have you ever been working on some mundane task when you suddenly wondered about the latest news from the world of hyoliths? Taking a walk, or merging onto a busy highway, or applying shampoo in the shower? All right, probably not, but if so, we're here for you!

Appropriately for this time of year, we have some news of hyoliths meeting or escaping grisly demises. (Or not, but that's taphonomy for you.) Kraft et al. (2023) published on an exceptionally well-preserved specimen of the Middle Ordovician central European trilobite Bohemolichas incola, including gut contents. The hyoliths are only a small part (quite literally!) of the story, which is well worth checking out if you have any interest in trilobites. The small trilobite (on the order of 35 mm or 1.4 inches long) apparently ate every darn thing it could fit in its mouth that wasn't putting up too much of a fight, including tiny hyoliths, ostracodes, stylophoran echinoderms, and chunks of shells.

The trilobite in question (Figure 1 from Kraft et al. 2023; scale bar 10 mm or 0.4 inches). Hyolith bits are in purple, including one recognizable shell under the trilobite's pygidium (tail segment). CC BY 4.0.

Paleozoic examples of the bilobed trace fossil Rusophycus are often attributed to resting trilobites, and one of the things you can do when you're not moving is pick up a snack. Lee et al. (2025), in a description of Cambrian Rusophycus from China, included an example where the trace was associated with hyolith shells. Unlike classic Rusophycus, thought to occur at the seafloor surface, this example was interpreted as a burrow. Also unlike classic trilobite predation trails, in this case the food had a hard shell. The trace-maker is thought to have been scavenging for hyoliths that had been transported from elsewhere.

Returning to the Ordovician of central Europe, we find a hyolith that was not eaten, although not from lack of trying. Fatka et al. (2023) reported a specimen of Elegantilites custos with healed damage in the form of scratches on its operculum. The culprit in this case is thought to have been an echinoderm, possibly an ophiuroid (brittle star) trying to get in.

Perhaps you'd prefer to think of your hyoliths more in terms of a grand and proud lineage, rather than delicious treats for every passing trilobite and brittle star. If so, Liu et al. (2024) have an analysis of Cambrian hyoliths for you. Using all valid Cambrian genera (N=115), they considered a set of 20 morphological characteristics over time and space. Overall hyolith taxonomic diversity peaked in Series 2 of the Cambrian (roughly speaking, the time when trilobites appeared and therefore kind of like the old "Early Cambrian"). They then keeled over sharply and were at lower levels for much of the rest of the Cambrian, locally reviving to a certain extent in the Early Ordovician. Their decline may have been due to an ocean anoxic event (the Sinsk Event) around 513 to 508 million years ago. The two major wings of hyoliths, the hyolithids (the kind with helens and complex opercula; filter feeders?) and orthothecids (the kind without helens and with simple opercula; deposit feeders?), did not follow the same curves: the orthothecids peaked sooner and felt the bite sooner, whereas the hyolithids didn't really get started until Series 2 and actually peaked just after it before suffering their drop. Morphological diversity was greatest in Series 2, although granted hyoliths had a somewhat limited repertoire.

The curve of Cambrian hyoliths. Figure 1 in Liu et al. (2024). CC BY 4.0.

References

Fatka, O., M. Valent, and P. Budil. 2023. The first healed injury in a hyolith operculum. The Science of Nature 110(50). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-023-01879-0.

Kraft, P., V. Vaškaninová, M. Mergl, P. Budil, O. Fatka, and P. E. Ahlberg. 2023. Uniquely preserved gut contents illuminate trilobite palaeophysiology. Nature 622: 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06567-7.

Lee, D.-C., M.‑K. Oh, Y. Zhang, X.‑L. Zhang, J.‑H. Lee, K. Liang, and W. Li. 2025. Two new probable feeding traces of Rusophycus from the Cambrian of China: tracemaker’s behavior and formation mode. Geosciences Journal 29: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-025-00007-6.

Liu, F., T. P. Topper, L. C. Strotz, Y. Liang, Y. Hu, C. B. Skovsted, and Z. Zhang. 2024. Morphological disparity and evolutionary patterns of Cambrian hyoliths. Papers in Palaeontology 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1554.

Going up (and down!) in section, southeastern Minnesota

I was recently on a trip to southeastern Minnesota for several days. While there, inevitably I ended up with some geological photos. I must confess that I've never spent any time down here outside of passing through, and this was actually the first occasion I'd spent any time above the Cummingsville, so it was nice to see the overlying units I'd only read about before. If you'd like to know what we're up against, I recommend the Minnesota Geological Survey's geologic atlas of Fillmore County (the trip wasn't entirely in Fillmore County, but you'll get the idea).

The Find

A weekend or so back I traveled down to Whitewater State Park to participate in their Fossil Field Trip event. As part of this, visitors go to a site off of the park where they can hunt for fossils (participants can keep two). It was very well presented and attended! The site is in the Cummingsville Formation, which is the limestone that follows the Decorah Shale. (Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that: much of the Cummingsville Formation in Olmsted County is roughly the offshore equivalent of the more nearshore Decorah of the Twin Cities, so where we were is probably equivalent to a horizon in the upper half of the Decorah quarry walls at the Brickyard.) Unlike the distinctive green-gray Decorah, the Cummingsville presents as a tan unit. It's a shaly limestone at the site, so it doesn't quite have the strength of a pure limestone, but it does better than the Decorah.

Weathering Cummingsville at the site.

The Cummingsville is not as fossiliferous as the Decorah, even accounting for my different search image, and the site is a known fossil site, so the going was slow at the beginning. Then I found this:

Well, I did do a little prep work and applied water before taking this picture, and the rock is about palm-sized all told, but you get the idea.

I'd been hoping to find a receptaculitid, because those are common in the Cummingsville and I haven't found one, but this was something better. Even in an unprepared state it was obviously an echinoderm based on the plates, but what kind? A crinoid calyx? Something else?

If you know what the arrows are pointing to...

The prep work exposed the little vent-like features, meaning it was some kind of rhombiferan cystoid. The cleaning also made it more obvious where the plates met, which can be kind of confusing when there are all these ridges to mislead the eye.

A handy diagram! The dotted lines are where the plate edges become obscure or are lost.

If you don't know what it is, check this out:

Figure 1 from Parsley (1970), with red lines and dots added by me. Original image CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.

Yup, this is a Pleurocystites, or at least a good-sized chunk of one. Either P. squamosus (Parsley 1970) or P. strimplei (Brower 1999) would be appropriate for the Cummingsville; there's not really enough there to tell between them, but I'm not complaining! It's fun to be in the right place at the right time with the right knowledge and experience.

References

Brower, J. C. 1999. A new pleurocystitid rhombiferan echinoderm from the Middle Ordovician Galena Group of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology 73(1): 129–153. 

Mossler, J. H. 2008. Paleozoic stratigraphic nomenclature for Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations 65.

Parsley, R. L. 1970. Revision of the North American Pleurocystitidae (Rhombifera-Cystoidea). Bulletins of American Paleontology 58(260): 135–213. 

The Lives of the Strophs

As mentioned a few years ago, strophomenid brachiopods must have had a different lifestyle than your typical brachiopod. With no pedicle to attach to anything, they would have been loose on the seafloor. Their strongly concave-convex shell anatomy seem likely to have been inconvenient in several ways. If you place them convex-up, the opening between the valves is liable to be in the sediment, which doesn't help a filter-feeder. If you place them concave-up, the shell is liable to be flipped over if it is not partially sunk into the sediment, and even if it's clear, the narrow gape would make the intake prone to fouling. Clearly, though, they must have been doing something right, at least for a few million years in the Late Ordovician if the rocks in the Twin Cities have anything to say about it.

A stroph in the Magnolia Member of the Platteville. See, I can always find ways to use even more photos from Uŋčí Makhá Park!

A new publication by Dattilo et al. (2024) offers a lifestyle reconstruction of the stroph Rafinesquina that may resolve these issues: in brief, rather than a narrow valve gape, these brachiopods may have lived with their valves wide-open.

Perhaps like this, as restored by Kyle Hartshorn for Figure 15, not unlike some modern brachiopods. CC BY 4.0.

Dattilo et al. present several lines of evidence leading to the conclusions that Rafinesquina had a typical gape around 45 degrees and could potentially open wider. The major area of focus was the anatomy of the hinge, including both the hard structures and the inferred musculature. The assembly, as it turns out, is rather more complex than one might suspect just looking at Stroph #46893 in a random Platteville surface. (It's also rather more complex than can be explained in a couple of sentences, so fortunately there is the paper to refer to.)

Although to be fair, Stroph #46893 has its charms.

The possibility of widely gaped strophs leads to some other potential implications. For instance, once the ability to make a respectable gape is admitted, there is also the possibility for mobility. A stroph buried by sediment could have used valve clapping to escape. (And if we're doing that, why not a bit of clap-swimming, like modern scallops?) Clapping is also a great way to quickly clear sediment from the feeding organs, and we may have evidence of this in the form of "moats" around some stroph fossils. A natural wide gape also helps explain how stroph internal anatomy worked: a stroph with a narrow gape has a cramped area for its lophophore to function in, while a stroph with a wide gape doesn't have to worry about this as much, as long as there's enough space to stow the lophophore when the valves are closed. Finally, a wide gape does not settle the concave-up or convex-up question, as the brachiopod can function in either mode. Dattilo et al. suggest that convex-up is more stable and protective for the stroph's soft parts.

References

Dattilo, B. F., R. L. Freeman, K. Hartshorn, D. Peterman, A. Morse, D. L. Meyer, L. G. Dougan, and J. W. Hagadorn. 2024. Paradox lost: wide gape in the Ordovician brachiopod Rafinesquina explains how unattached filter-feeding strophomenoids thrived on muddy substrates. Palaeontology 67(2): e12697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12697.

Uŋčí Makhá Park 2024: another winter, more echinoderms

Two years after opening, Uŋčí Makhá Park can be considered a paleontological gem in the Twin Cities. With its Magnolia Member bedding planes, side cuts through the Magnolia and Carimona, easy access, and lack of vehicle traffic, it's nigh-on perfect for getting in touch with St. Paul as it was about 454–453 million years ago. It's kind of like our own Carnegie Quarry wall, except it's tiny marine invertebrates rather than dinosaurs, it probably wasn't planned, and you can walk right out over it. It's always fun to get to spend time there for work, and like last year, I got the opportunity to assist with a training session for Mississippi National River & Recreation Area seasonals there. Then, of course, I just had to make a quick return trip later to follow up on some things we'd seen.

Stromatolites in situ

A few weeks ago, during the elongated-dry-autumn-with-long-nights that has been substituted for winter in these parts this year, I visited a stromatolite patch in the Prairie du Chien Group and took the usual digital heap of photographs. The photos aren't quite as sharp as I would have liked, but they show a variety of aspects of stromatolites both up close and in situ, unlike the usual circumstances of getting only one of those two properties.

First off, here's a general idea of what we're dealing with:

Click to embiggen, as usual; the thing about stromatolites is sometimes they're more apparent at a distance, and sometime they're more apparent when your nose is practically on them. In this photo, there are columns a couple of centimeters across in the lower part, leading to a small shelf with a knobbly surface representing the tops of said columns, followed by an interval of more obscure growth.

The prolific interval was up to about three quarters of a meter thick, with some significant variation, microbial mounds not being big on standardization. Within this interval it was possible to see where a mound's growth had been cut off, or changes between narrow columns and broader stacks.

Here we have a broad mound of numerous coalesced small centers that is cut off starkly about two-thirds of the way up the photo.

Another example where there appears to be discontinuity between the growth lower in the photo and that in the upper part.

This tall mound is fairly broad at the base, then goes into narrower columns, then appears to show column consolidation near the top.

Part of why the photos may have lacked some clarity is the weathering of the surfaces (and the bright light). The stromatolites had a sort of artistic appearance in places, a bit like fingerprints in rock. I could see paintings of these done with heavy strokes to emphasize the tactile appearance of weathering layers.

There's a certain melted quality to this exposure.

I'm not sure what happened here, but this one looks like it's breaking up (and there seems to be a big rounded pebble in the upper left).

Another interesting feature was the occasional exposure of the top surface of a stromatolitic interval. Given the preponderance of smallish columns, it should not come as a surprise that such surfaces are knobbly.

A close look will reveal the more or less concentric layers of individual columns that have been truncated by weathering.

Finally, here's a surface showing columns that apparently grew out laterally. We usually think of the original microbial colonies growing vertically, to reach the light, but again microbial mounds aren't big on standardization, and will grow as conditions influence them. (Or maybe this mound was simply knocked over at some point; unfortunately, we're missing most of it.)

Preservation is different in this one as well, with layers still being evident but expressed less colorfully.

Cottage Grove cystoid

I recently paid a return visit to the site in Cottage Grove where I'd previously spotted a few blocks with brachiopods/etc. of the typical Platteville persuasion. While there, a few true outcrops were visible under the snow-free conditions of the so-called winter of December 2023, confirming that the Platteville is indeed at the surface and not just present as lag or buried under a bad toupee of soil and glacial debris. More significant was one of the blocks. See if you can spot what drew my attention:

Any ideas?

How about if we go in closer on the area of interest?

If you answered something along the lines of "the thing near the center that looks kind of like a truncated letter K", you've won! I snapped a couple of pictures thinking it might be echinoderm in origin and moved on. Later, upon reviewing the photos, the rectangular bit below it caught my eye; that definitely looked echinoderm. In fact, there is only one kind of thing it could belong to, as proclaimed by the chevron arrangement of slots on it surface. This is a plate from a rhombiferan cystoid bearing a pore rhomb in a pectinirhomb configuration. ("Of course!" you shout.) (Okay, so I looked up the anatomical terminology). Basically, the slots are vents for the animal's water circulation system.

This rock was obviously a good candidate for further study and photography, so I took some more photos with the hope of doing some taxonomy. Further inspection revealed a couple sharply ridged features similar to the "K", but more weathered.

There's a pretty well-developed one in the upper right, and one that is more poorly exposed near the left side.

When I first noticed the "K", I thought it might be ridges on a crinoid plate, but local crinoid plates don't usually have such sharp ridges. Instead, it turns out that there is a Platteville cystoid that does, Coronocystis durandensis. Coincidentally, this particular cystoid also has pore rhombs that are a good match for the pore rhomb plate on this rock (see photos in Kolata 2021).

Here close-up and with a tiny drip of water applied. There is also a gray rectangular ridge visible near the right border that I suspect to be another plate, but it's not as well-exposed.

I hesitate to make a firm identification from the available material, but it certainly appears that we have Coronocystis or something very similar. Coronocystis is interpreted as a stalked rhombiferan cystoid, unlike its free-thrashing cousin Pleurocystities (which does pore rhombs differently and has softer ridges). I interpret the block as from the Mifflin Member of the Platteville, but I suppose it could be higher. Whatever the exact identification at the genus or species level, this is clearly a rhombiferan cystoid, and the first I've ever seen in the field (and I'm pretty sure the first record from Cottage Grove). Plus, the several bits suggest a disarticulated but fairly associated specimen.

References

Kolata, D. R. 2021. Fossils of the Upper Ordovician Platteville Formation in the upper Midwest USA: an overview. Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois. Bulletin 108.

Release the robotic Pleurocystites!

Speaking of paleobiology, here's a fun story that crossed my desk recently...

If you've ever seen a fossil of Pleurocystites or its ilk, you've probably wondered what the heck it was doing in life (and perhaps how disturbing it may have looked while doing it). What once was confined to the realm of speculation now takes a step, or more accurately a kind of thrash, into the 21st century with the "Rhombot", a robotic pleurocystitid detailed in Desatnik et al. (2023).

The rhombots use the basic form of a pleurocystitid: central capsular body (theca), two short appendages (brachioles) at one end, one long appendage (stem) at the other end. The body plan is scaled-up in comparison to the real thing, and, of course, it is made of various artificial materials (many of which are not rigid, hence the "soft robotics" tag) rather than pleurocystitid stuff.

Pleurocystitids, thrashing their way from Ordovician seafloors to the modern day via the rhombot (Figure 1, Desatnik et al. 2023) (CC BY-NC-ND-4.0).

Granted, a rhombot is not a direct replica of a Pleurocystites. Assuming the living thing did indeed use its stem for propulsion, what can we gather from a robotic equivalent? First off, the rhombot was much more efficient with the stem moving it from behind rather than pulling it along. (This seems like a common-sense conclusion on first principles, so it's good to see it confirmed.) The stem also was more effective when used with a stiff sweep, rather than working with a sinuous motion. Finally, there was an optimal length for the stem (Desatnik et al. 2023). I encourage you to go to the linked article and see the movies of rhombots in action; they are not the most graceful robots, but pleurocystitids were probably not the most graceful animals.

References

Desatnik, R., Z. J. Patterson, P. Gorzelak, S. Zamorad, P. LeDuca, and C. Majidi. 2023. Soft robotics informs how an early echinoderm moved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(46):e2306580120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2306580120.

Fossils of the Upper Ordovician Platteville Formation in the Upper Midwest USA: An Overview

I'm not really in the business of plugging books, but I *have* gotten one recently that those of you who read this blog for the Ordovician posts may find interesting (if you haven't already come across it). The book is "Fossils of the Upper Ordovician Platteville Formation in the Upper Midwest USA: An Overview" by Dennis Kolata, Illinois State Geological Survey emeritus (and also one of the authors on a volume on the Deicke K-bentonite). I was tipped off to it by member "connorp" on The Fossil Forum during my quest to identify what turned out to be Zittelloceras.

The Platteville of Illinois and southern Wisconsin isn't *exactly* the same as in Minnesota (the strata are thicker and the fossils are better preserved than what we see in the Twin Cities), but anyone looking for information or comparative photos for Minnesota Platteville fossils is going to find plenty in the book to consider. The book is also useful for identifying fossils in the overlying rocks (e.g., the Decorah Shale), because many of the genera are the same. Several graphics clarify the correlation of different Platteville divisions across the area where the formation was deposited.

The text, organized by broad taxonomic group, is technical. Each species is given a diagnosis, followed by remarks about aspects such as notable features or distinguishing it from other species, and then its stratigraphic and geographic distribution. This is not unlike the various group-focused articles in Sloan (1987), but unlike the small black-and-white figures in the 1987 book, Kolata's book is filled with gorgeous color plates featuring large photos of every species. (The one quibble I have is that scaling is given by numbers, e.g., "x1.5", instead of scale bars, but I can certainly use them either way!) For anyone who is interested in the fossils but is not versed in the details of invertebrate anatomy, or anyone just looking to identify a particular find, these plates are invaluable.

If you'd like to find out more about this volume, the Illinois State Geological Survey bookstore is online here. The book can also be found on Amazon. It is 316 pages and costs $60.00.

References

Kolata, D. R. 2021. Fossils of the Upper Ordovician Platteville Formation in the upper Midwest USA: an overview. Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois. Bulletin 108.

Sloan, R. E., editor. 1987. Middle and Late Ordovician lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations 35.

Zittelloceras

While on a walk earlier this year, I spotted a Decorah block that I decided to pick up for photography. The initial attraction was the abundance of snails, which are a reliable indicator that pieces of our fossil arthropod friends are also present (if there's only one practical thing you take away from this blog, it's "when you're in the Decorah and see snails, look for trilobites"). This was indeed the case:

Here's the whole block, which rewards a click to embiggen. There is a nice Clathrospira and a lophospire just right of the scale bar, and many smaller snails scattered throughout. You may also pick out the trilobite pygidia.

Here's a pygidium, pointed toward the top of the photo.

A nice pygidium plus a number of other things, including some crinoid columnals, bryozoan fragments, other trilobite bits, and, near the top, a whorl of a snail.

There was also something else: a dark object several millimeters long and broad. It appeared to be a thin-walled flattened tubular object, with a distinct series of ornamented transverse ridges. The ridges showed an alternating pattern of strongly projecting and more subtle, like perforations. Both had little scooped frilling, the same kind of shape as a doodle of stereotypical ocean waves.

The object in question is near center. You may have noticed it in the first photo. The light-colored band near the center is some light prep to see if I could get the matrix out from the groove.

I'd never seen this combination of features before, but I could knock out a lot of things quickly. In fact, I knocked out just about everything, which was a problem. Given the probability I had discovered a completely new phylum is pretty low, all things considered, I figured I'd probably missed something. So, I pulled out my copy of "A Sea Without Fish" (Meyer and Davis 2009) to see if some similar exotica had been found in the well-studied Cincinnatian, as it's only a few million years younger. Then I got excited looking at the figure and description of the machaeridian worm Lepidocoleus. Machaeridia is an extinct group of Paleozoic armored annelid worms, with segments of calcitic plates and a heart-shaped cross-section.

This view, under different lighting, shows the ridges and frills to good effect.

Before I got too excited, I decided to put it up on the Fossil Forum, to see what others might think. The first suggestion was Phragmolites, which was reasonable enough but didn't fit my experience with that snail. The chunk wasn't curved enough, the dark coloration and thin wall were unlike the examples of Phragmolites I'd seen, and the ornamentation of the ridges wasn't a good fit. Then someone came up with the nautiloid Zittelloceras, and provided photos of a form with almost the exact same pattern of frilled ridges found in the Platteville.

An end-on view shows the cross-section, with the thin walls and central crushing.

So, it looks like rather than a worm, it's a nautiloid. Zittelloceras is one of the "arched" nautiloids, not coiled and not a full-on orthocone. Several species are present in the Platteville per Catalani (1987), but none are listed in the Decorah. This is not a particular problem, as the genus is present in younger strata as well, and the Decorah's cephalopod record lags the Platteville. (Note that Zittelloceras is frequently misspelled "Zitteloceras", with one "l", but a look at the original publication, Hyatt 1884, shows the two-l spelling is correct.) I'm sure there are worms out there to be found in the Decorah, but I'll settle for this record of an ornate nautiloid.

Here's one more angle for the road.

References

Catalani, J. A. 1987. Biostratigraphy of the Middle and Late Ordovician cephalopods of the Upper Mississippi Valley area. Pages 187–189 in R. E. Sloan, editor. Middle and Late Ordovician lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations 35.

Hyatt, A. 1884. Genera of fossil cephalopods. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 22:253–338. [some history: The paper is based on a talk presented by Hyatt April 4, 1883, a day before his birthday. There is a note on the first page that there was going to be a monograph in the Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, but this did not happen. At any rate it's hard to think of an 80-page paper being "preliminary" to anything!]

Meyer, D. L., and R. A. Davis. 2009. A sea without fish: life in the Ordovician sea of the Cincinnati region. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Uŋčí Makhá Park Revisited, Part 2: Further Fossils

We're now up to the fourth entry in a completely unexpected series on the Platteville–Decorah rocks and fossils of Uŋčí Makhá Park. We've already seen the common fossils from the site, so for this go-round I'm focusing on rarities.

Uŋčí Makhá Park Revisited, Part 1: Freeze-Thaw

After I'd come across the new exposures at Uŋčí Makhá Park last fall, I was very curious about how a Minnesota winter and spring would treat them. After all, these were fresh, with no previous direct exposure to snow, ice, and freeze-thaw cycles. Would they rapidly degrade, or were they made of sterner material? Last week I had the opportunity to spend some quality time at the park, in preparation for and leading a training session for Mississippi National River & Recreation Area seasonals (and if any of the participants happen on this post, hello! I hope you had a good time!).

What were the results of this natural experiment? A few observations:

The Carimona Member of the Decorah (blue-gray upper interval), particularly the blocks used as landscaping, suffered appreciably more than the Magnolia Member of the Platteville (tan lower interval). I attribute this to the greater shale content of the Carimona.

This is a pretty illustrative comparison. The blue-gray block on the upper left is Carimona, and the tan block on the lower right is Magnolia. The Carimona block's upper surface is littered with small chips, while the only chips on the Magnolia block came from the Carimona block. (Note also the large burrow on the Magnolia block.)

More Carimona landscaping showing exfoliation.

This indicates that the Carimona blocks will weather faster than the Magnolia blocks; eventually, both lithologies will reach equilibrium with their new surroundings, but the "fucoidal" surfaces on the landscaping are going to go away faster than the shell beds.

Note the burrows popping off the surface in some places.

It wasn't all smooth sailing for the Magnolia, though. Although many blocks and beds seemed fine, others had definite signs of damage.

Here a thin bed is breaking up.

This isolated block appears to be shattered. (Colors are weird because when I took this photo, I'd forgotten to reset the lighting from tungsten bulbs.)

Unlike last fall, which was a time of drought, this spring we can also definitely see where the seeps are.

And they're concentrated at the bentonite layers in the Carimona.

Many fossils and features came through without particular damage, though. I included a photo of a bivalve in the fossil guide post. Here it is last week:

Dare I say that it's "happy as a clam"? (Ignore the color balance differences.)

With that out of the way, did we find other fossils I hadn't seen in the fall? Well, of course! Tune in next week for some less-typical fossils!

Prasopora, with a comment on biostratigraphy

Prasopora, the "gumdrop bryozoan", is one of the most recognizable Ordovician fossils in Minnesota. Museum collections from Minnesota have boxes of the little darlings rattling around together. And I—I hardly ever see the dang things in the field.

Yes, one of these things; a bit more "chocolate kiss" than "gumdrop" but well within morphological variation.

While my competence in many fields is questionable at best, in this case you can be assured I would recognize a Prasopora if I saw one, even if it was years before I learned the stress goes on the second syllable rather than the third. (I have an unerring instinct for putting the stress on the wrong syllable for scientific names I've read but never heard.) No, the real issue here is one of biostratigraphy. My usual stomping grounds cap in the lower third of the Decorah, and Prasopora doesn't really kick in until the middle–upper Decorah. This has been recognized since the days of "The Geology of Minnesota" (Ulrich 1895; Winchell and Ulrich 1897). At that time eight species were recognized (P. affinis, P. conoidea, P. contigua, P. insularis, P. lenticularis, P. oculata, P. selwyni, and P. simulatrix), all of which were restricted to a range extending from the "Fucoid and Phylloporina beds" of the "Black River Group" (roughly Sardeson bed 5, middle–upper Decorah) to the "Fusispira and Nematopora beds" of the "Trenton Group" (as high as Sardeson bed 8, in the Prosser Limestone) (Winchell and Ulrich 1897; approximate correlations after Sloan 1987). None of them are listed in equivalents to Sardeson beds 3 and 4, in the lower Decorah, and only P. conoidea, P. contigua, P. lenticularis, and P. simulatrix were reported from the closest "Fucoid and Phylloporina beds".

Same specimen as above, which has a convenient break showing a partial cross-section; it's not solid all the way through.

Forty years later Stauffer and Thiel (1941) were not quite as dainty in their stratigraphic divisions, simply having a Decorah Shale Member of the Galena Formation and a Spechts Ferry Member of the Platteville Formation (approximately the Carimona Member of the Decorah). The "Spechts Ferry" gets Prasopora grandis, which had been Monticulipora grandis back in 1897, when it had been reported from the Stictoporella bed (lower Sardeson bed 3). P. grandis also appears in S&T's Decorah Shale Member list along with the four "Fucoid and Phylloporina beds" species, Stauffer presumably having stratigraphically higher specimens of P. grandis than W&U. Whether or not grandis pertains to Prasopora has been a matter of some dispute, and it seems to have wandered back to the metaphorical arms of Monticulipora. More importantly, it doesn't look like classic gumdrop Prasopora, instead being "irregularly massive, often tending to become lobate or subramose" (Ulrich 1895). In other words, it's not the kind of thing the typical fossil enthusiast would associate with the genus.

Wee little discoidal Prasopora.

My personal experience with Prasopora is limited to a few pieces in the Valentine box that appear to represent P. conoidea and a small discoidal species, a couple of small discoidal specimens that blur the line between early-stage Prasopora and "less famous bryozoan encrusting the external surface of an inarticulate brachiopod in an aesthetically pleasing Prasopora-like way", and one great honking lopsided hoof of a colony I found a few years ago at a basement excavation. I don't generally attempt to assign species to bryozoan fossils, but P. simulatrix is the only species described by Ulrich (1895) to attain dimensions even vaguely like it, so I'll go with that.

A top view of an unfortunately resolutely three-dimensional object.

And the underside, showing the distinctive layering and a few bits of other things that became part of the structure.

Bonus news: for those of you who've had your fill of gumdrop bryozoans, the spring 2023 edition of the NPS Park Paleontology newsletter is now available.

References

Sloan, R. E. 1987. History of study of the Middle and Late Ordovician rocks of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Pages 3–6 in R. E. Sloan, editor. Middle and Late Ordovician lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations 35.

Stauffer, C. R., and G. A. Thiel. 1941. The Paleozoic and related rocks of southeastern Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. Bulletin 29.

Ulrich, E. O. 1895. On Lower Silurian Bryozoa of Minnesota. Pages 96–332 in L. Lesquereux, C. Schuchert, A. Woodward, E. Ulrich, B. Thomas, and N. H. Winchell. The geology of Minnesota. Minnesota Geological and Natural History Survey, Final Report 3(1). Johnson, Smith & Harrison, state printers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Winchell, N. H. and E. O. Ulrich. 1897. The lower Silurian deposits of the Upper Mississippi Province: a correlation of the strata with those in the Cincinnati, Tennessee, New York and Canadian provinces, and the stratigraphic and geographic distribution of the fossils. Pages lxxxiii–cxxix in L. Lesquereux, C. Schuchert, A. Woodward, E. Ulrich, B. Thomas, and N. H. Winchell. The geology of Minnesota. Minnesota Geological and Natural History Survey, Final Report 3(2). Johnson, Smith & Harrison, state printers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Hunting the wild stromatolite at Vermillion Falls

The gorge at Vermillion Falls, as seen before, is cut through quite a bit of the Prairie du Chien Group. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that somewhere in all of those oodles of outcrop, there are some stromatolites. It should be just a matter of walking down and having a look, right? We-e-ll, easier said than done. A few factors are pushing against going from "predicted" to "established":

1) The classic booby prize of vertical exposures—sure, there's a lot of surface, but you don't get to see most of it up-close;

1b) Furthermore, for many of the places where you *can* examine the walls, you can't change your vantage point because backing up a foot or two puts you a foot or two lower or in open space (and that never helps). What makes this annoying with stromatolites is they can be expressed in various scales, and what you can't see with your nose on the rocks may be perfectly apparent from a couple of arm's lengths away except for that whole "absence of footing" thing, or a promising feature may disappear as you clamber up the slope to inspect it;

2) The surfaces have been fried to a crisp by weathering, which for our purposes disguises the fine layering and other subtle features.

The existing literature is not especially illustrative. Stauffer and Thiel (1941) included a section taken at the railroad bridge (now a footbridge), which describes the walls as 58.5 ft (17.8 m) of Shakopee Dolomite over 1 ft (0.3 m) of Root Valley Sandstone over 47 ft (14 m) of Oneota Dolomite, with nary a stromatolite mentioned (to be fair, the lithological descriptions are also very slim). The site has made it into a few theses and other student papers (Shea 1960; Squillace 1979; Robins 2005), but that seems to be about it. Maybe this limited documentation is a recognition of the above limitations by wiser heads than mine, but I have the faith of a gambler that something will turn up if I look long enough, so down we go back into the gorge.

Besides, why would I want to sit around inside when I could see things like this?

My strategy involves *not* looking directly for stromatolites, at least not the classic laminated features. I would never see them here except on fresh breaks. Instead, I'm looking for a couple of other features: bedding planes that are undulating rather than horizontal, and anomalously recessive intervals (I've seen elsewhere that stromatolitic intervals may be relatively erosion-prone compared to non-stromatolitic intervals). These two features should be visible even through the stain of weathering that began before the most recent Ice Age.

Down near the falls, in some of the lowest accessible beds, something very promising is apparent.

Left

Center

Right

We've definitely got an undulating surface that is appropriately stromatiform* in appearance, as well as being within an interval that is recessed. (In fact, the interval above is recessed in comparison to the interval above that, so this is not for people who don't like rocks poised above their heads [or, for that matter, people who have a phobia of birds pooping on them, because there are pigeons roosting in cavities above].)

*Google says it can come up with about 328,000 hits for "stromatiform". What it doesn't tell you is how many are useful and how many are just dictionaries, rhyming words, anagrams, pronunciations, and SEO things seeking to boost traffic with lists from dictionaries.

A little closer, between two apparent mounds

So stromatiform...

Obviously the next thing to do is to is to get close and look for finer details. That's where things become less clear. There are, conveniently, some fresh surfaces (not made by me!), and they do show alternating compositions. They are, however, rather thick layers.

Layers in one fresh surface.

Not quite as fresh, but you get the idea.

Layers on a spalled piece, frozen to the underlying moss.

I'd been hoping to find nice stacks of small columns beneath the undulating layers, but they aren't appearing (yet, at least). If we compare to Logan et al. (1964) and May et al. (2012), the latter also dealing with large Prairie du Chien stromatolites, it's as if we've skipped the columnar "Cryptozoon" stage and gone straight to broad "Collenia". This may say something about the local environment, or it may say that I'm just getting excited about some inorganic stromatiform-producing process.

Then there's whatever the heck is this. Bedded sedimentary rocks don't do things like this without a good reason.

If the issue is not immediately apparent, check the annotated version below and click to expand as necessary.

Too bad it was on the other side of the gorge. There's probably a way down somewhere...

References

Logan, B.W., R. Rezak, and R. N. Ginsburg. 1964. Classification and environmental significance of algal stromatolites. The Journal of Geology 72(1):68-83.

May, S. L., L. E. Davis, and D. G. Brown. 2012. Algal stromatolites in the Willow River Member of the Lower Ordovician Shakopee Formation near Chatfield, Minnesota, USA. The Compass: Earth Science Journal of Sigma Gamma Epsilon 84(1, Article 6):42–48.

Robins, C. 2005. The geology of the New Richmond Sandstone. Senior Integrative Exercise. Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota.

Shea, J. H. 1960. Stratigraphy of the Lower Ordovician New Richmond Sandstone in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

Squillace, P. J. 1979. The geology of the New Richmond Member of the Shakopee Formation (Lower Ordovician), Upper Mississippi Valley. Thesis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Stauffer, C. R., and G. A. Thiel. 1941. The Paleozoic and related rocks of southeastern Minnesota. Bulletin 29. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota.