Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: a medullosalean pteridosperm (Upper Carboniferous of northeastern Ohio)

May 5th, 2017

It is time we had another fossil plant in this series. The above specimen is Neuropteris ovata Hoffmann 1826, a relatively common bit of foliage in the Upper Carboniferous of North America. This is a pteridosperm, more commonly known as a seed fern. They weren’t really ferns at all but fern-like plants with some of the first real seeds. They are usually reconstructed as trees, but were also known to be bushy or even like climbing vines.

The taxonomy (naming system) of fossil plants can be very complicated because different plant parts were given different names at different times. A single plant species, then, could have a list of names for its foliage, bark, roots, seeds, etc. The name Neuropteris usually thus refers to the leaves of this particular pteridosperm.

Neuropteris ovata is famous for its use in studies of the distribution of stomata on its leaf surfaces. Stomata, sometimes called guard cells, regulate gas exchange and moisture retention in vascular land plants. The density of stomata on N. ovata leaves in the Late Carboniferous may reflect changes in carbon dioxide levels and the expansion and contraction of tropical forests (Cleal et al., 1999).

Neuropteris ovata was named by Friedrich Hoffmann (1797-1836), a Professor of Geology at the University of Berlin. I wish I knew more about him because not only did he do considerable paleobotanical research, he was also well known for his work on volcanoes in Italy. You don’t see that combination very often!

References:

Beeler, H.E. 1983. Anatomy and frond architecture of Neuropteris ovata and N. scheuchzeri from the Upper Pennsylvanian of the Appalachian Basin. Canadian Journal of Botany 61: 2352-2368.

Cleal, C.J., James, R.M. and Zodrow, E.L. 1999. Variation in stomatal density in the Late Carboniferous gymnosperm frond Neuropteris ovata. Palaios 14: 180-185.

Hoffmann, F. 1826. Untersuchungen über die Pänzen-Reste des Kohlengebirges von Ibbenbühren und von Piesberg bei Osnabrück. Archiv für Bergbau und Hüttenwesen 13: 266-282.

Zodrow, E.L. and Cleal, C.J. 1988. The structure of the Carboniferous pteridosperm frond Neuropteris ovata Hoffman. Palaeontographica Abteilung Palaophytologie 208: 105-124.

[Originally posted on October 23, 2011.]

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Bivalve escape trace fossils (Devonian and Cretaceous)

April 7th, 2017

It is time again to dip into the wonderful world of trace fossils. These are tracks, trails, burrows and other evidence of organism behavior. The specimen above is an example. It is Lockeia James, 1879, from the Dakota Formation (Upper Cretaceous). These are traces attributed to infaunal (living within the sediment) bivalves trying to escape deeper burial by storm-deposited sediment. If you look closely, you can see thin horizontal lines made by the clams as they pushed upwards. These structures belong to a behavioral category called Fugichnia (from the Latin fug for “flee”). They are excellent evidence for … you guessed it … ancient storms.
The specimens above are also Lockeia, but from much older rocks (the Chagrin Shale, Upper Devonian of northeastern Ohio). Both slabs show the fossil traces preserved in reverse as sediment that filled the holes rather than the holes themselves. These are the bottoms of the sedimentary beds. We call this preservation, in our most excellent paleontological terminology, convex hyporelief. (Convex for sticking out; hyporelief for being on the underside of the bed.)

The traces we know as Lockeia are sometimes incorrectly referred to as Pelecypodichnus, but Lockeia has ichnotaxonomic priority (it was the earliest name). Maples and West (1989) sort that out for us.
Uriah Pierson James (1811-1889) named Lockeia. He was one of the great amateur Cincinnatian fossil collectors and chroniclers. In 1845, he guided the premier geologist of the time, Charles Lyell, through the Cincinnati hills examining the spectacular Ordovician fossils there. He was the father of Joseph Francis James (1857-1897), one of the early systematic ichnologists.

References:

James, U.P. 1879. The Paleontologist, No. 3. Privately published, Cincinnati, Ohio. p. 17-24.

Maples, C.G. and Ronald R. West, R.R. 1989. Lockeia, not Pelecypodichnus. Journal of Paleontology 63: 694-696.

Radley, J.D., Barker, M.J. and Munt, M.C. 1998. Bivalve trace fossils (Lockeia) from the Barnes High Sandstone (Wealden Group, Lower Cretaceous) of the Wessex Sub-basin, southern England. Cretaceous Research 19: 505-509.

[Originally published January 29, 2012]

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Strophomenid brachiopods from the Upper Ordovician of southern Ohio

March 24th, 2017

Usually I find fossils in the field or lab and then craft a Fossil of the Week entry around them. This time, though, I started with a paper and then searched for fossils to illustrate it. I found this recent paper very well done:

Bauer, J.E. and Stigall, A.L. 2016. A combined morphometric and phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician brachiopod genera Eochonetes and Thaerodonta. Journal of Paleontology 90: 888-909.

It does classic systematics on a group of brachiopods with the modern tools of morphometric and phylogenetic analyses. Its conclusions are direct and convincing: The genus Thaerodonta is synonymous with Eochonetes, and a variety of species are shifted around, solving problems that have lingered for over a century, Plus as a bonus, who can’t love a new species named Eochonetes voldemortus? So I set out to find specimens of this brachiopod group in our collections. Above are internal valve views of the brachiopod Eochonetes clarksvillensis (Foerste, 1912), showing characteristic denticles (little teeth) along the hinge line. Below are external valve views. Jen Bauer herself kindly confirmed the identifications!

These specimens come from the Waynesville Formation (Katian) exposed at Caesar Creek in southern Ohio, a place we have had many paleontology field trips. E. clarksvillensis is common in the Waynesville and overlying Liberty formations. Read much more about it in Bauer and Stigall (2016).

The genus Eochonetes was named by Frederick Richard Cowper Reed in 1917 from the Ordovician of Scotland. (The British Isles were not too far away from Ohio in the Late Ordovician.) Reed was born in London in 1869 and died in Cambridge, England, in 1946. I tried mightily but could find no images of him to enter into the digital archives of the web. He was a smart and diverse geologist, attending Trinity College, Cambridge, and winning important awards and scholarships. He was appointed assistant to the Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge in 1892, a position he kept until retirement. In 1901 he earned the Sedgwick Prize for his work on the rivers of East Yorkshire, wrote a book on the geology of the British Empire (much easier to do today!), and yet still found time to describe fossils in numerous papers.

The author of Eochonetes clarksvillensis is much better known to paleontologists of the Cincinnati region. It is August F. Foerste (1862-1936), who named Thaerodonta clarksvillensis in 1912. Foerste grew up and worked in the Dayton, Ohio, area, graduating from Denison University after publishing many papers as a student. He returned to Dayton after earning a PhD from Harvard, teaching high school for 38 years. When he retired he turned down a teaching position at the University of Chicago and instead worked at the Smithsonian Institution until the end of his life. He is one of the giants of the Cincinnati School of paleontology.

References:

Bauer, J.E. and Stigall, A.L. 2016. A combined morphometric and phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician brachiopod genera Eochonetes and Thaerodonta. Journal of Paleontology 90: 888-909.

Reed, F.R.C. 1917. The Ordovician and Silurian Brachiopoda of the Girvan District: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 51: 795–998.

Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: A stromatoporoid (Middle Devonian of central Ohio)

February 17th, 2017

Stromatoporoids are very common fossils in the Silurian and Devonian of Ohio and Indiana, especially in carbonate rocks like the Columbus Limestone (from which the above specimen was collected). Wooster geologists encountered them frequently on our Estonia expeditions in the last few years, and we worked with at least their functional equivalents in the Jurassic of Israel (Wilson et al., 2008).

For their abundance, though, stromatoporoids still are a bit mysterious. We know for sure that they were marine animals of some kind, and they formed reefs in clear, warm seas rich in calcium carbonate (DaSilva et al., 2011). Because of this tropical habit, early workers believed they were some kind of coral, but now most paleontologists believe they were sponges. Stromatoporoids appear in the Ordovician and are abundant into the Early Carboniferous. The group seems to disappear until the Mesozoic, when they again become common with the same form and life habits lasting until extinction in the Late Cretaceous (Stearn et al., 1999).

The typical stromatoporoid has a thick skeleton of calcite with horizontal laminae, vertical pillars, mounds on the upper surface called mamelons, and dendritic canals called astrorhizae shallowly inscribed on the mamelons. These astrorhizae are the key to deciphering what the stromatoproids. They are very similar to those on modern hard sponges called sclerosponges. Stromatoporoids appear to be a kind of sclerosponge with a few significant differences (like a calcitic instead of an aragonitic skeleton).

Stromatoporoid anatomy from Boardman et al. (1987).

Top surface of a stromatoporoid from the Columbus Limestone showing the mamelons.

There is considerable debate about whether the Paleozoic stromatoporoids are really ancestral to the Mesozoic versions. There may instead be some kind of evolutionary convergence between two groups of hard sponges. The arguments are usually at the microscopic level!

The stromatoporoids were originally named by Nicholson and Murie in 1878. This gives us a chance to introduce another 19th Century paleontologist whose name we often see on common fossil taxa: Henry Alleyne Nicholson (1844-1899). Nicholson was a biologist and geologist born in England and educated in Germany and Scotland. He was an accomplished writer, authoring several popular textbooks, and a spectacular artist of the natural world. Nicholson taught in many universities in Canada and Great Britain, finally ending his career as Regius Professor of Natural History at the University of Aberdeen.

Henry Alleyne Nicholson (1844-1899) from the University of Aberdeen museum website.

References:

Boardman, R.S., Cheetham, A.H. and Rowell, A.J. 1987. Fossil Invertebrates. Wiley Publishers. 728 pages.

DaSilva, A., Kershaw, S. and Boulvain, F. 2011. Stromatoporoid palaeoecology in the Frasnian (Upper Devonian) Belgian platform, and its applications in interpretation of carbonate platform environments. Palaeontology 54: 883–905.

Nicholson, H.A. and Murie, J. 1878. On the minute structure of Stromatopora and its allies. Linnean Society, Journal of Zoology 14: 187-246.

Stearn, C.W., Webby, B.D., Nestor, H. and Stock, C.W. 1999. Revised classification and terminology of Palaeozoic stromatoporoids. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 44: 1-70.

Wilson, M.A., Feldman, H.R., Bowen, J.C. and Avni, Y. 2008. A new equatorial, very shallow marine sclerozoan fauna from the Middle Jurassic (late Callovian) of southern Israel. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 263: 24-29.

[Originally published on October 30, 2011]

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Upper Ordovician brachiopods and bryozoans from paleontology class collections

January 6th, 2017

1-geopetal-tommyLast semester the Invertebrate Paleontology class at Wooster had its annual field trip into the Upper Ordovician of southern Ohio. We had a great, if a bit muddy, time collecting fossils for each student’s semester-long project preparing, identifying, and interpreting their specimens. Like all research, especially when it starts in the field, there were discoveries and surprises. I always highlight a particular specimen collecting by a student in this blog.

Above is a cross-section of a specimen found by Tommy Peterson (’19). It is the rhynchonellid brachiopod Hiscobeccus capax almost completely enveloped by an encrusting trepostome bryozoan. We’ve cut through the center of the brachiopod, revealing gray micritic sediment and clear calcite crystals. We can infer from this simple specimen that the brachiopod died and its shell remained articulated. Sediment drifted in, filling the bottom half of the shell. The bryozoan eventually sealed it all up as it used the brachiopod shell for a hard substrate on a muddy seafloor. The remaining void space was filled in by the precipitation of calcite crystals. You can see that the crystals nucleated from the outer margin of the cavity and grew inwards, a kind of calcareous geode. I’m intrigued by the irregular sediment surface and the manner in which calcite nucleated upwards from it. I suspect this sediment was itself cemented before the calcite crystals appeared.

This kind of structure is called a geopetal. It shows the “way up” at the time of crystal formation. Gravity held the pocket of sediment in the bottom of the shell, leaving the void at the top. Nice little specimen.

2-constellaria-alexisThis star-studded bryozoan found by Alexis Lanier (’20) was going to be the Fossil of the Week, but then I saw that last year I highlighted the very same species! I think the bryozoan Constellaria is cool. Read all about it and its history at the link.

3-table-of-traysHere are the completed specimen trays for half the class. (Grading this project took, as you might imagine, considerable time!). Every week in lab, after we had done the assigned work, we got out the trays and cleaned, prepared, and identified the specimens. Students learned how to use the rock saws and make acetate peels of the bryozoans and corals.

4-tray-insideInside a typical tray. We are very grateful for the many online sources to aid identification of these Cincinnatian fossils. Three in particular were most valuable: Alycia Stigall’s Digital Atlas of Ordovician Life, Steve Holland’s stratigraphic and paleontological guide to the Cincinnatian, and the spectacular Dry Dredgers website.

Ohio is a paleontological paradise!

Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: Spiriferinid brachiopod from the Lower Carboniferous of Ohio

October 14th, 2016

syringothyris-texta-hall-1857-anterior-585Sometimes I choose a Fossil of the Week from our Invertebrate Paleontology teaching collection because students have responded to it in some way. This week’s fossil brachiopod has confused my students a bit because it is an internal mold (unusual for brachiopods in our experience) and a member of the Order Spiriferinida rather than the Order Spiriferida. (Catch that? The difference is in two letters.) It is Syringothyris texta (Hall 1857) from a local exposure of the Logan Formation (Lower Carboniferous). Above is a view of the anterior showing the medial fold and sulcus (like an anticline). This, by the way, is the largest brachiopod in our collection.

syringothyris-texta-hall-1857-posterior-585Syringothyris Winchell, 1863, is a genus within the order Spiriferinida, as noted before. This order was erected in 1994, pulling it from the more familiar Order Spiriferida. In this preservation, the spiriferinids are distinguished by a high cardinal area in the posterior (shown above). Not much higher than the spiriferids, truth be told.

syringothyris-texta-hall-1857-dorsal-585This is a view of the dorsal valve side of this internal mold. Note the absence of ribs (plicae) on the fold in the middle.

a_winchellThe geologist and paleontologist Alexander Winchell (1824-1891) named and described the genus Syringothyris. We met Winchell before in this blog as he described many common fossil taxa in the Midwest. He was born in upstate New York, a seventh-generation New Englander. In 1847 he was graduated from Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He had a varied and peripatetic career, spending most of his time as a teacher of science. He first taught in New Jersey, New York and Alabama, staying a short time in each place. He founded the Mesopotamia Female Seminary in Eutaw, Alabama, and became president (briefly) of Masonic University in Selma. In 1854, Winchell was appointed professor of physics and civil engineering at the University of Michigan, a position that soon became geology and paleontology. Five years later he became the state geologist of Michigan, a job characterized by an apparently difficult relationship with his superiors. In 1872 he left Michigan to be chancellor of Syracuse University, lasting only two years. Next he was a professor of geology and zoology at Vanderbilt University, a position he was forced to resign from in 1878 due to his unbiblical views of evolution. Winchell then returned to the University of Michigan, again as a professor of geology and paleontology. There is where he died.

Winchell’s views on evolution were complicated by his religiosity, and his religious life was made difficult by evolution. He developed a kind of transcendental Darwinism in which selection was reduced to inflexible laws from the Creator, a view we would today call Intelligent Design. He then confused it all by writing a popular book called Preadamites, published in 1880. The darker races, he said, lived in Europe and Asia before Adam. Adam and the subsequent “Noachites” were derived from Negroes, according to Winchell, advancing steadily in intellectual development and whiteness while the black race and other Preadamites were left behind. This work is profoundly racist and pseudoscientific, despite the Darwinian gloss he attempted to paint over it.

a-screen-shot-2016-10-10-at-8-49-42-pmb-screen-shot-2016-10-10-at-8-57-04-pmFrontispiece of Winchell (1880).

References:

Bork, K.B. and Malcuit, R.J. 1979. Paleoenvironments of the Cuyahoga and Logan Formations (Mississippian) of central Ohio. Geological Society of America Bulletin 90: 89–113.

Vörös, A., Kocsis, Á.T. and Pálfy, J. 2016. Demise of the last two spire-bearing brachiopod orders (Spiriferinida and Athyridida) at the Toarcian (Early Jurassic) extinction event. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 457: 233-241.

Winchell, A. 1863. Descriptions of FOSSILS from the Yellow Sandstones lying beneath the “Burlington Limestone,” at Burlington, Iowa. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Proceedings, Ser. 2, vol. 7: 2-25.

Winchell, A. 1880. Preadamites; or a demonstration of the existence of men before Adam. Chicago, S.C. Griggs and Company; 500 p.

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: Ordovician cryptostome bryozoans from southern Ohio

September 23rd, 2016

waynesville-cryptostomesA short entry this week because the annual meetings of the Geological Society of America and Paleontological Society begin this weekend in Denver. (Wooster is sending 17 students this year. Seventeen! A record for us.)

The above image is a detail from a slab of limestone collected from the Waynesville Formation (Upper Ordovician, Katian) on a class field trip earlier this month to Caesar Creek, Warren County, Ohio.  The stick-like fossils are mostly cryptostome bryozoans generally aligned by the last of some ancient water current. Cryptostomes are small and fussy  bryozoans, and thus hard to work with. There hasn’t been a significant overview of Ohio Ordovician cryptostomes for quite awhile, so I suspect there is much new to learn about them.

The following posts will be from Denver!

Wooster’s Fossils of the Week: A bored Ordovician hardground from Ohio, and an introduction to a new paper on trace fossils and evolution

June 3rd, 2016

Bull Fork hdgdAbove is an image of a carbonate hardground (cemented seafloor) from the Upper Ordovician of Adams County, Ohio. It comes from the Bull Fork Formation and was recovered along State Route 136 north of Manchester, Ohio (Locality C/W-20). It is distinctive for two reasons: (1) the many external molds (impressions, more or less) of mollusk shells, including bivalves and long, narrow, straight nautiloids, and (2) its many small borings called Trypanites, a type of trace fossil we’ve seen on this blog before.
Bull Fork boringsIn this closer view we can see the shallow external molds of small bivalve shells, especially on the left side, and the many round perforations of the Trypanites borings.

The dissolved mollusk shells (from bivalves and nautiloids) were originally composed of the calcium carbonate mineral aragonite. This aragonite dissolved early on the seafloor, liberating calcium carbonate that quickly precipitated as the mineral calcite in the sediment, cementing it into a rocky seafloor (hardground) that was then bored by the animal that made Trypanites. This all happened because of the distinctive geochemistry of the ocean water at that time. High levels of carbon dioxide and a decreased Mg/Ca ratio dissolved aragonite yet enabled calcite (the more stable polymorph of calcium carbonate) to rapidly precipitate. This geochemical condition is known as a Calcite Sea, which was common in the early to middle Paleozoic, especially in the Ordovician. This is not the case in today’s marine waters in which aragonite is the primary calcium carbonate precipitate (“Aragonite Sea“). See Palmer et al. (1988) for more details on this process and the evidence for it.

I’m using this Ordovician carbonate hardground to introduce a new paper that just appeared this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): “Decoupled evolution of soft and hard substrate communities during the Cambrian Explosion and Ordovician Biodiversification Event“. The authors are the renowned trace fossil experts Luis Buatois and Gabriela Mángano, the ace geostatistician Ricardo Olea, and me. I’m excited about this paper because it adds to the literature new information and ideas about two major evolutionary radiations: the “explosion” of diversity in the Cambrian (which established basic body plans for most animals) and the diversification in the Ordovician (which filled in those body plans with abundant lower taxa). This is one of the few studies to look in detail at the trace fossil record of these events. Trace fossils (records of organism behavior in and on the sediment substrate) give us information about soft-bodied taxa otherwise rare in a fossil record dominated by shells, teeth and skeletons. It is also the first systematic attempt to compare the diversification of trace fossils in soft sediments and on hard substrates (like the hardground pictured above).

As for the paper itself, I hope you can read it. Here is the abstract —

Contrasts between the Cambrian Explosion (CE) and the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE) have long been recognized. Whereas the vast majority of body plans were established as a result of the CE, taxonomic increases during the GOBE were manifested at lower taxonomic levels. Assessing changes of ichnodiversity and ichnodisparity as a result of these two evolutionary events may shed light on the dynamics of both radiations. The early Cambrian (Series 1 and 2) displayed a dramatic increase in ichnodiversity and ichnodisparity in softground communities. In contrast to this evolutionary explosion in bioturbation structures, only a few Cambrian bioerosion structures are known. After the middle to late Cambrian diversity plateau, ichnodiversity in softground communities shows a continuous increase during the Ordovician in both shallow- and deep-marine environments. This Ordovician increase in bioturbation diversity was not paralleled by an equally significant increase in ichnodisparity as it was during the CE. However, hard substrate communities were significantly different during the GOBE, with an increase in ichnodiversity and ichnodisparity. Innovations in macrobioerosion clearly lagged behind animal–substrate interactions in unconsolidated sediment. The underlying causes of this evolutionary decoupling are unclear but may have involved three interrelated factors: (i) a Middle to Late Ordovician increase in available hard substrates for bioerosion, (ii) increased predation, and (iii) higher energetic requirements for bioerosion compared with bioturbation.

Thank you to Luis Buatois for his leadership on this challenging project. I very much appreciate the way this work has placed the study of trace fossils into a critical evolutionary context.
Fig1_PNASFigure 1 from Buatois et al. (2016): “Ichnodiversity changes during the Ediacaran-Ordovician. Ichnogenera were plotted as range-through data (i.e., recording for each ichnogenus its lower and upper appearances and then extrapolating the ichnogenus presence through any intervening gap in the continuity of its record).”

References:

Buatois, L.A., Mángano, M.G., Olea, R.A. and Wilson, M.A. 2016. Decoupled evolution of soft and hard substrate communities during the Cambrian Explosion and Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (in press).

Palmer, T.J., Hudson, J.D. and Wilson, M.A. 1988. Palaeoecological evidence for early aragonite dissolution in ancient calcite seas. Nature 335: 809-810.

Wilson, M.A. and Palmer, T.J. 2006. Patterns and processes in the Ordovician Bioerosion Revolution. Ichnos 13: 109-112.

Wooster’s Fossil of the Week: A crinoid stem internal mold from the Lower Carboniferous of Ohio

April 8th, 2016

crinoid internal mold 1The Biology Department at The College of Wooster is in the midst of a massive move in advance of the construction of the new Ruth Williams Hall of Life Science. The staff has been combing through old specimen collections, giving away items they don’t need for teaching or research. Among the objects are occasional fossils they gave to the Geology Department. The above specimen is one of the most curious: a combination internal and external mold of a crinoid stem from the local Lower Carboniferous rocks.

crinoid internal mold lumen copyThis is a closer view of the fossil. It is a cylindrical cavity with faint rings in a regular distribution. (These are external molds of the individual crinoid columnals.) Suspended down the axis is a segmented pillar with a stellate cross-section. (This is the internal mold of the crinoid stem lumen, a central cavity that runs down the center of the stem.) It appears that an iron-rich cement (probably siderite) filled this lumen after the death of the crinoid. The stem fragment was enveloped in a siderite concretion and the calcite stem columnals dissolved away. This leaves us with both an external mold of the stem and an internal mold of its lumen.

Carb stem 1For comparison, this is a crinoid stem fragment in its original calcite. It was found in a local Carboniferous limestone.

Carb stem 2Here are cross-sections of the same stems showing sediment-filled stellate lumens in their centers.

Wooster’s Pseudofossils of the Week: Shatter cones from southern Ohio

March 4th, 2016

Real shatter cones 585This brief post is a correction of a previous entry. Last year I showed what I thought were shatter cones collected many years ago in Adams County, Ohio, by the late Professor Frank L. Koucky of The College of Wooster. James Chesire commented on the post and said it was more likely the specimens were cone-in-cone structures produced by burial diagenesis not bolide impacts. When he sent me the photo above of real shatter cones from the Serpent Mound impact region in southern Ohio, I knew he was correct. Shatter cones have distinctive radiating, longitudinal fractures not seen in similar conical structures in limestones. The above shatter cones are in an unknown Ordovician limestone.

Both shatter cones and cone-in-cone structures are nevertheless pseudofossils in that they are both sometimes confused with organic structures like corals and chaetetids. I shall never mix them up again! Thanks for the correction, James.

References:

Carlton, R.W., Koeberl, C., Baranoski, M.T. and Schumacher, G.A. 1998. Discovery of microscopic evidence for shock metamorphism at the Serpent Mound structure, south-central Ohio: confirmation of an origin by impact. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 162: 177-185.

Dietz, R.S. 1959. Shatter cones in cryptoexplosion structures (meteorite impact?). The Journal of Geology 67: 496-505.

Sagy, A., Fineberg, J. and Reches, Z. 2004. Shatter cones: Branched, rapid fractures formed by shock impact. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: B10209.

Shaub, B.M. 1937. The origin of cone-in-cone and its bearing on the origin of concretions and septaria. American Journal of Science 203: 331-344.

Next »