Post by Joe Botting on Feb 10, 2012 10:27:11 GMT -5
Hi Peter,
That's a spectacular amount of work you've been putting in - many thanks indeed. And I agree, there are clear examples of hexactines in at least some, but not as many as in the first one. You can say there are obvious crosses, but most of these are just rays (probably of monaxons) overlying each other - it can be a bit complicated telling them apart.
What I'm looking for are spicules where you can see at least three relatively short, stubby rays coming from one point, and with the rays all getting wider towards the centre. I also want to see from the shadows that they fuse into one structure rather than one pair of rays forming a ridge over the others. In the best ones there should be a central hole representing a ray going into the rock - there were some in the first specimen.
Possible examples are all over the place, but of course it's no use unless one can be absolutely sure that they're hexactines. I saw one or two in the second specimen, and now there are some pretty convincing ones in the fifth s well (although very small, so hard to be absolutely sure, but they match the proportions of the first ones quite well). The third and fourth I can't any in that convince me, and most of the obvious crosses are certainly just randomly overlying spicules.
I think I'm happy, you know. They're there in at least two specimens and probably three, and the others aren't preserved right to be able to tell. The spicules are all morphologically very similar and consistent in proportions, so it's highly unlikely that they're a random association with the sponge bodies... so yep, mission accomplished. Well done! ;D
I'm going to have to think what to do with these, but I think I could use them in a paper on protomonaxonid relationships. It would be one component of the arguments, but not the main focus of the paper, and without actually seeing the specimens myself, that's all I'm willing to go out on a limb with. On that basis I could mention them as being in your private collection, or if you were to donate the first specimen to the ROM, I could give a specimen number (always better, of course). Either way would suit me. A full descriptionw will have to wait for another time, though, and access to lots of specimens and a good microscope.
Does that sound ok to you?
That's a spectacular amount of work you've been putting in - many thanks indeed. And I agree, there are clear examples of hexactines in at least some, but not as many as in the first one. You can say there are obvious crosses, but most of these are just rays (probably of monaxons) overlying each other - it can be a bit complicated telling them apart.
What I'm looking for are spicules where you can see at least three relatively short, stubby rays coming from one point, and with the rays all getting wider towards the centre. I also want to see from the shadows that they fuse into one structure rather than one pair of rays forming a ridge over the others. In the best ones there should be a central hole representing a ray going into the rock - there were some in the first specimen.
Possible examples are all over the place, but of course it's no use unless one can be absolutely sure that they're hexactines. I saw one or two in the second specimen, and now there are some pretty convincing ones in the fifth s well (although very small, so hard to be absolutely sure, but they match the proportions of the first ones quite well). The third and fourth I can't any in that convince me, and most of the obvious crosses are certainly just randomly overlying spicules.
I think I'm happy, you know. They're there in at least two specimens and probably three, and the others aren't preserved right to be able to tell. The spicules are all morphologically very similar and consistent in proportions, so it's highly unlikely that they're a random association with the sponge bodies... so yep, mission accomplished. Well done! ;D
I'm going to have to think what to do with these, but I think I could use them in a paper on protomonaxonid relationships. It would be one component of the arguments, but not the main focus of the paper, and without actually seeing the specimens myself, that's all I'm willing to go out on a limb with. On that basis I could mention them as being in your private collection, or if you were to donate the first specimen to the ROM, I could give a specimen number (always better, of course). Either way would suit me. A full descriptionw will have to wait for another time, though, and access to lots of specimens and a good microscope.
Does that sound ok to you?