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.

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.

Quick Guide to Fossils at Uŋčí Makhá Park

So I went back to Uŋčí Makhá Park last weekend and spent a couple of hours taking photos of fossils, because it makes such an ideal place to see the upper Platteville fauna. After all, a winter of freezes and thaws may not leave these new exposures looking as nice as they do now. Here's a quick guide to what can be seen there. (Let's see how many photos I can squeeze into one post, and how many species I can misidentify!)

Determining where you are stratigraphically

First of all, I'd just like to reiterate the stratigraphy. Most of the vertical extent is in the Magnolia Member of the Platteville Formation, with the upper part composed of the Carimona Member of the Decorah Shale. I'm thinking more or less the entire extent of the Carimona is exposed, based on thickness; at any rate the next thing up would be the shaly part of the Decorah, and there isn't a trace of it to be seen. I'm suspicious because the difference is just so darn clear, but at this site there is an unmistakable color change between the two units: the Carimona is the upper blue-gray interval and the Magnolia is the light tan-gray interval below. The Deicke K-bentonite is the lower and thicker of the two bentonite gaps in the Carimona. (Note that the Carimona is sometimes supplemented or replaced by landscaping, but this is pretty obvious.) As you walk from south to north, the "floor" goes up stratigraphically, so it's not all one bedding plane but a gently rising series of planes, until by the exit you're close to the color change.

The color change is quite evident here. The Deicke K-bentonite is the cut-in about halfway up the blue-gray Carimona (above the scale bar in the center of the photo).

Here we've gone north, and the floor has risen. The Deicke is still the seam in the middle of the blue-gray rocks.

Strolling on the Magnolia Member by Hidden Falls

If you're looking for something geological to do in the Twin Cities while we're still under our unseasonably warm and dry weather, may I suggest paying a visit to the new park area above Hidden Falls? [Update, 2022/11/01: this park is called Uŋčí Makhá Park.] As part of the conversion of the former Ford Plant environs, part of the area of the creek into Hidden Falls has been daylighted. The landscaping has produced a mini-bedrock gorge that exposes significant vertical and bedding-plane surfaces of the Magnolia Member of the Platteville and the overlying Carimona Member of the Decorah.

There's nothing quite like this kind of exposure in the Twin Cities; we don't have a lot of exposed non-vertical bedrock in the first place, and this particular stratigraphic interval tends to be out of reach. The closest might be the platform below the overlook at Shadow Falls, but that's more limited in extent and has more of a stair-step profile.

Bonus points for spotting the Deicke K-bentonite.

Many of the exposed bedding plane surfaces reveal the shell beds the Magnolia is known for. The fossils are almost entirely brachiopods (with a few snails) and are represented by dolomitized molds and casts, giving them that characteristic sugary appearance.

See the little bumps? Brachs.

Enlarge for a world of brachiopods.

Here's a closer view showing a few nice examples, representing multiple species.

Also, just for fun, some of the stones used for landscaping are loaded with burrows.

If you stop by, please don't attempt to remove the fossils; it's a park, after all, and the fossils aren't really going to come off in one piece because they're molds and casts. Just enjoy the experience of walking on the seafloor without ever getting wet!

Synchronicity of Large Crinoids

I was recently out of town for work, and one of the things I saw was Middle Pennsylvanian-age building stone with stem segments from large crinoids:

Big ol' crinoids

It's like bony fingers strewn on the ground

You'd think with all this stem, there'd be a calyx somewhere, but no dice

At a shade over 1 cm (about 0.4 in) in diameter, the columnals are quite a bit bigger than garden-variety columnals, but still are well shy of world champ columnals, which reportedly exceed 2.5 cm (1 in); certainly much bigger than anything in Minnesota, right?

Yes! Time for the ironic photo!

Only yesterday, less than a week after returning from the above trip, I was visiting a couple of Decorah Shale sites and came across the above specimen. I happened to be caught short of a traditional scale bar, so you will have to take my word that the fingernail of the above finger is 1.1 cm (0.43 in) across at its widest point. Therefore, that columnal is 1.5 cm (0.59 in) across, which is pretty darn big for anything in the Decorah except for certain trilobites. In fact, it made me wonder if the stone might be a ringer transported from another formation, by glacier, river, or what-have-you. (Not impossible at all; here's a neat report on all kinds of exotic rocks and fossils found in Mississippi gravel, including Lake Superior agates and Sioux Quartzite; closer to home, a piece of an Upper Cretaceous ammonite was once found at the Brickyard, as related in Cobban and Merewether 1983:19.) However, the chunk shows no evidence of transport, and lithologically it looks the same as any piece of thin limestone eroded out of the Decorah. Were it not for the great honking columnal, I wouldn't have thought twice about its legitimacy. (I wouldn't even have thought once!) My guess is that this particular specimen originated from higher in the formation than the stuff I usually see, or that great honking crinoids were a very minor part of the Decorah fauna and this just happens to be my first encounter.

References

Cobban, W. A., and E. A. Merewether. 1983. Stratigraphy and paleontology of mid-Cretaceous rocks in Minnesota and contiguous areas. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Professional Paper 1253.

Bryozoan Overload

Sometimes you look at a slab, and you notice one special thing about it. "That's a nice Isotelus hypostome." "Neat strophs." "Look at that Phycodes!" In this case, it's "Gee, that's a lot of bryozoans!"

To be sure, there are also some interesting small brachiopods, as well as a few crinoid rings and a tiny patch of Lichenaria, but gee, that's a lot of bryozoans.

(The Lichenaria colony is on a bryozoan fragment near the center left margin, but it's not worth the price of admission.)

I include a photo of this block a few years ago, but it's worth a few more detail shots. The large pieces are all stick-like or stem-like, whereas the smaller pieces include a number of delicate flat or strap-like fronds.

Branching straps plus a few different brachiopods.

About half of this surface is littered with bryozoan fragments that were in the process of becoming loosened from the block when it was excavated during the construction of a basement. Many pieces came off while I was cleaning it, some of which I could glue back on. (Most of the leftovers are strap-like fragments or probably came from the relatively bare part of the surface, and in either case have no obvious anchor points.) Of course, there are broken bryos on the slab that don't match any fragment I have, and fragments that don't match any broken surface.

Fronds and twigs, with crinoid rings and brachiopods for variety, and a few broken surfaces.

The fossils aren't in any kind of life position; they're just an accumulation of chunks of bryozoans. Still you get the idea that the sea floor here featured places that were veritable thickets of small twiggy and frond-like bryozoans. To all you time travelers: probably not recommended for bare feet.

It's bryozoans almost all the way through, as well.

Decorah craniate brachiopods

One of the more frustrating minor components of the Decorah fauna are the craniate brachiopods. Why are they so frustrating? They're easy to mistake at first glance for all sorts of other fossils (especially when partially buried or partially encrusted), such as:

• Trilobite glabellas
• Echinoderm plates
• Bivalves
• Monoplacophorans
• Small Scenella

One of these...

Craniates, in brief, are brachiopods from the "inarticulate" structural wing but the "calcitic" compositional wing. At the Brickyard section, the two most abundant are Acanthocrania setigera and Petrocrania halli, which can be difficult to distinguish in practice (Rice 1987). The phosphatic inarticulate Schizocrania, which does a lot of the same things, is also present but much rarer. Other inarticulates at the Brickyard, from the phosphatic side, include Craniops minor, Pseudolingula eva, and Trematis sp. (Rice 1987). Other species are cited in museum collections; one which I've seen, "Crania" (now Acanthocrania) granulosa, looks suspiciously like the "raspberry cystoids" in this post.

Several more, in situ. A might be a ringer; I'm not sure. B is an overturned shell (note also the tiny pygidium just above and to the right). C is partially encrusted. D shows what happens when a thin piece of rock and a thin shell meet inexperienced preparation from the underside.

Acanthocrania and Petrocrania have thin domed shells with concentric growth rings. Unlike most of the other Decorah brachs, they do not have strong ridges (and, of course, they don't look much like the other brachiopods in a lot of other ways, too). They seem to have been attractive to encrusters; all of the loose specimens I have are covered with bryozoans, and some of them have either tabulate corals or cornulitids growing on them as well. For their part, craniates are noted encrusters of other brachiopods; presumably the unattached specimens in the photos were also originally attached to other brachiopods, becoming dislodged (probably after the death of the craniate).

What do the five rounded domed blobs of bryozoans have in common? If you turn them over, they all have the heart of a brachiopod.

This strophomenid has a craniate encrusting on the lower right, as well as several cornulitids.

References

Rice, W. F. 1987. The systematics and biostratigraphy of the Brachiopoda of the Decorah Shale at St. Paul, Minnesota. Pages 136–166 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.

Revisiting Shadow Falls Park

I like to periodically recheck various sites along the Mississippi corridor, to see how the elements are treating them, if there have been any major rock falls, damage from downed trees, changes in usage, etc. One of the places I get to more frequently than others is Shadow Falls Park. It has an informal reputation for collecting and is a place with soil on steep slopes (plus access is good and I like going there).

Here's the trail on the south side of the valley past the falls (which are essentially just to the right and a little below the vantage point of this photo).

Erosion may not be immediately evident if you don't have something to measure the loss of sediment, but in places with tree roots near the surface on the slopes it's easy to see how running water and gravity have done their work.

Almost a staircase of roots.

The usual array of lower Decorah fossils was present, in small chunks of rock and loose. It seemed to be a particularly good day for observing strophomenids (in the hash plates, primarily; they tend to break up otherwise). One example in the photo below is probably Rafinesquina, based on the thinness of the valve. This genus is named after Rafinesque, who we met last week and had a much more substantial career than getting into arguments about sloths. Another nice piece observed was a Bumastoides pygidium.

A. Probable Rafinesquina valve. B. Bumastoides pygidium

In one area I observed two pieces of a larger specimen of Rauffella palmipes. This is all catch-and-release, of course!

Two fragments of a large Rauffella palmipes.

Shadow Falls includes not only the falls, but a long valley oriented east-west with its head near but not quite reaching Cretin Avenue. I haven't spent much time in the valley above the falls because the area right above the falls tends to turn into a muddy swamp, but it's been a dry spring. The creek feeding the falls is in a very deep valley for its size, but would have been somewhat bigger in the days before sewers and roads.

The creek valley above Shadow Falls...

...opens up into this near its head.

There are several large fossiliferous blocks along the creek that include crinoid columnals notably larger in diameter than the run-of-the-mill lower Decorah columnals (note that the photo in the linked post is biased to larger, more photogenic columnals). The obvious guess is that they were brought to the area by glaciers and represent a different part of the stratigraphic column, say the upper Decorah or one of the overlying Ordovician formations that have been stripped from the area.

Large columnals

Stictoporellina cribrosa, saltine bryozoan

I've never put much emphasis on identifying bryozoans beyond their basic forms. There are, though, a few which are quite distinctive and worth differentiating. One that most fossil enthusiasts in Minnesota will be familiar with is the "gumdrop" or "Hershey kiss" Prasopora. Another notable example is Stictoporellina cribrosa, which can be identified as the "saltine" bryozoan if you don't mind extending the food comparison. S. cribrosa is the Decorah bryozoan known for broad thin colonies with perforations ("fenestrules").

As pictured here. If you enlarge it, you'll be able to more clearly see the tiny pores that were the living spaces of the bryozoan animals.

Phragmolites

I could have titled this "That One Snail", because that's what Phragmolites seems to have become in my circle of acquaintances; for whatever reason, we remember having seen this distinctive fossil but can't remember what it's called. This is where a common name, something like "sculpted ring snail", might come in handy. If you haven't seen them, they could easily be mistaken for a tiny coiled cephalopod, or some kind of worm tube or crinoid columnal if the specimen is not exposed clearly. They range in size from less than a centimeter to about an inch across and are flat-coiled (planispiral), with the outer coils wider than the inner coils and partially covering them, and a distinct but small keel. There are strong markings on the coils that resemble the sutures of a nautiloid or ammonite.

These little fellas.

The other side of the slab

Here we have the opposite side of a big ol' rock.