All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. The second (last) one is a neural sine form a hadrosaur. The nubbin on it is the zygapophesis. See if you can find the part in this complete vert:
  3. Great finds. I'm jealous. This illustrates the value in getting off the beaten path and away from areas that are heavily hunted on a regular basis. Hard work and paddling pays off!
  4. The issue I'm seeing with the photography is they are taken under low light levels. You need sunlight ideally. I don't know about cellphone cameras but like Fossildude says - selfies and people pics.
  5. In my thought, I couldn't rule out a worn 'tilly bone' (hyperostotic process of a fish bone).
  6. Some good info & pics in here Mako sharks: White sharks:
  7. The black one in the upper left of the second picture is a horse toe (Phalanx I). It is unusual to see black Pleistocene fossils in the D/FW area. The others in that picture are all bone fragments. One of them looks like a vertebral centrum. -Joe
  8. Nice finds! Thanks for sharing!
  9. Again I'll mention, the Collections section of TFF was never intended to have the level of detailed information required by designated fossil repositories, or to pretend to substitute as a repository of that information. It does serve a gateway to that more specific information if the current collector has it in possession. It is also another tool to encourage the proper documentation fossils in one's collection. I think we can all agree, these regulations will not be influenced one way, or another, based on the data requirements of the TFF Collections section. On the other hand, TFF has published thousands of examples of how avocational fossil enthusiasts have cooperated and contributed to the science of paleontology. Across the United States (and elsewhere), 'amateurs' are part of the 'lifeblood' of paleontology (professionals start somewhere ). Working together, we should be smart enough to figure out how to respect individual rights, protect and share the resource, and advance the science paleontology.
  10. You may find that an ultrasonic cleaner may help.
  11. I can't see the arachnid, so, I'm definitely in the plant camp. Here's an all-in-one image which might help:
  12. Today
  13. Do you mean that, after coating with lacquer, water removed some of the lacquer? Or did you wash the fossil and then not let it dry long enough before lacquering? Most of my shale fossils can stand up to short exposure to water, even the ones with white glue, but I have to be careful, and sometimes I have to add more glue into cracks or reglue parts that fall off during washing. But once it's done, it should not need it again. (I hope)
  14. Wow, those are awesome
  15. Thank You, The Karl Wilson link is great. I think the really weathered part of the cut was the Bentonite layer. -Dom
  16. The last one reminds me of the upper portion of a crocodilian rib...but I'm by no means an expert.
  17. Try to compare with these :
  18. Yesterday
  19. They are whale teeth but I am unsure if they are sperm whale. @Boesse will know for sure. Tony
  20. I would say yes, but I am no expert on Whale Teeth. Try... @ynot or @sixgill pete
  21. Wow. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but it is only your opinion and not necessarily the only opinion that is right. Why not try to teach us how to do it the "right way" instead of belittling people for not sharing your opinions.
  22. Yes, isopropyl rubbing alcohol is fine.
  23. What a great haul!
  24. Those are some great finds, love the megs! Congrats: )
  25. I found these at Aurora Phosphate mine. Are these sperm whale teeth? I remember as a kid I found these and all the adults on the bus (as everyone is showing off their finds) gave me ugly looks, hahaha. It was all in good fun, but at that time I knew I found something cool. Ahh the good ol days.......
  26. Ah, cool, thank you! I love goblin sharks, they have such ridiculous-but-effective faces. And it's good to have a probable ID.
  27. Not sure what you mean. There is no requirement as to the provenance of the specimen. Therefore the pertinent info required by this forum doesnt meet even minimum standards of a musum or scientific community. 'Montana' is not a geologic location. It is a state bigger than the UK. Still not sure why the reluctance to make the Collections a meaningful resource rather than just a hodgepodge of specimens that can be equally found via Google. Better to have 100 properly presented specimens than a 1000 that are not. How does this pertain to this topic? It would be great if the Fossil Forum could show the regulators how the fossil community is contributing to the science of paleontology and that that 'amateur' doesnt mean 'second best'. Instead the reluctance to embrace scientific methodology makes the case for restricting collecting to individuals who have a knowledge of proper field potocol.
  1. Load more activity