Though some aspects may make it seem like this is a different species than my #1 from the same formation, I placed it in this group for all they have in common. Here's an example photo of one of the crinoids found by Strimple and Miller (the paleontologists whom identified the new species 'Aexitrophocrinus Minuromulosus' from this same formation in 1971).



In this next labeled image, my dilemma is visible. Of course, it's probably not actually as complicated to figure
out as my brain is making it, but due to the fact that I'm a simple amateur, I'm asking for help.

On first glance (and second and third and fourth), it seems to me like there are four plates (I mean from radial to axillary) in the first brachitaxis of the E ray.

[I think I've identified the rays accurately here by the positions of the three infrabasals and the larger interray between what I think are the C and D rays; the CD interray]

I have labeled the primaxil of the E ray as "IBr3?ax" to denote the fact that, while I do know it is the axillary brachial of the first brachitaxis, I'm not sure whether it is the second or third brachial plate after the radial (radials being the 'zero' plate of the ray).

If you'd like to help me identify the plates between the basals and IBr3?ax in this specimen, I'd be happy to provide better images. Please contact me and I'll post them with a separate link right here on this page.












Here, not only are the disarticulated radial and brachial plates, well, disarticulated, but they are
vertically lower here in this image than their living position. I think that after they became
disarticulated, they 'fell' downward and that downward in this case was relative to the position it is
sitting in for this photo (more on why this fascinates me further down on this page).



This is the second crinoid calyx I found in this formation. I found it in the summer of 2005. 


This image is from the pages on which I discuss some of the 'defining characteristics' (specifically,
"whether or not the basals are mostly covered", as well as "whether or not the radials reach the
columnar cicatrix") about A. Minuramulosus; a species of crinoid found by Strimple and Miller in this
same formation back in 1971.

When I first found specimen #1 from this formation, it seemed like it may be a member of that
particular species. However, after further, careful inspection, it seems as though this specimen is not
a match with Strimple and Miller's 1971 description of A. Minuramulosus.



On a completely different note....
Of course, this may already be obvious to everyone else and I'm just having my own grandiose moment here, but...

The first image on this page (many articulated plates; two rays clearly visible) shows what I think was the side of the crinoid which was facing down in the mud or silt (or whatever it's called) on the bottom of the sea, protected from the sea, while the next image (many disarticulated plates; not much articulation) shows what I think was the side that was pointing up, potentially exposed to all kinds of organic activity and to the sea it self as well.

I've recently started noticing this in all of the crinoids I've found in this formation. I'm getting the hint that it's not just this formation, nor is it a big discovery, but just the way things work. Whatever hits the floor of the sea and stays there, touching it, protected by it, may just be the only part of the organism we ever get to see later on when it gets exposed by uplift and erosion.