Jump to content


Showing fossils posted in for the last 365 days.

Content Types

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Pyrazisinus sulcatus

    Lovely shell!
  3. Last week
  4. Swedenborgia benkertii (Kräusel, 1959)

    Beautiful specimen!
  5. Isotelus "mafritzae"

    Very nice. Excellent preservation.
  6. Abelisaurid Premax Tooth

  7. Abelisaurid Premax Tooth

    I use photogrammetry to scan the fossil. There's a tutorial about it on the forum.
  8. Abelisaurid Premax Tooth

    How did you load it onto a 3d program?
  9. Trilobite of Russia

    We are, essentially, publishers practicing the process of scientific accuracy.
  10. Trilobite of Russia

    By the way, the reason I care about this is that recently I have noticed that when I google names of fossil species, images from the Fossil Forum (including from Collections) are often at or near the top of the list of recovered links. That means that we should be extra careful to name things properly, because that information is being passed on to the entire internet. Don
  11. Trilobite of Russia

    Interesting problem in nomenclature. In this case the species has historically been assigned to Chasmops, but recently a new genus Prochasmops has been proposed but is not widely accepted. The rules governing taxonomic names are quite precise. Brackets can be used to indicate a subgenus, or when placed around the name of the person who described the species it indicates that the species was originally associated with a different genus. They are not used to split up a name into accepted/questionable parts, nor should they be used to indicate old names that are no longer used, as you see too often in Forum posts. The better option would be to pick one genus name (either Chasmops or Prochasmops, or even ?Prochasmops as piranha did) and then explain the controversy in the "more info" section. Don
  12. Trilobite of Russia

    Because the name Prochasmops is in question as say @piranha. In the french forum, it is listed as Chasmops praecurrens.
  13. Isotelus "mafritzae"

    That's a corker!
  14. Trilobite of Russia

    I posted one back in 2011 and mentioned possible problems with the name. At that time the name Prochasmops had only occurred in the "grey" literature. As of 2018 it has only been listed in a total of 6 publications. Klikushin et al. 2009 established the new genus and Krueger 2013 has elaborated further on this proposal. The most recent paper, Schöning 2017 has reported: ?Prochasmops sp. Klikushin, V., Evdokimov, A., & Pilipyuk, A. 2009 Ordovician Trilobites of the St. Petersburg Region, Russia. Saint-Petersburg Paleontological Laboratory, Griffon Enterprises Inc., Master Fossil Japan, 541 pp. Krueger, H.H. 2013 Die Unterfamilie Chasmopinae (Trilobita, Pterygometopidae) aus baltoskandischen Geschieben sowie Baltoskandia und angrenzenden Gebieten. Ampyx-Verlag, 150 pp. Krueger, H.H. 2017 Die Trilobitengattungen Estoniops MÄNNIL und Achatella DELO (Trilobita: Phacopida, Pterygometopidae) aus ordovizischen baltoskandischen Geschieben. Ampyx-Verlag, 44 pp. Lawrence, P., & Stammers, S. 2014 Trilobites of the World: An Atlas of 1000 photographs. Siri Scientific Press, 416 pp. Levi-Setti, R. 2014 The Trilobite Book: A Visual Journey. University of Chicago Press, 273 pp. Schöning, H. 2017 Trilobiten aus Geschieben des Kies-Sand-Rückens in der Laerheide (Landkreis Osnabrück) – II. Ordovizische Trilobiten. [Trilobites from rubble of the gravel-sand ridge in the Laerheide (Osnabrück district) - II. Ordovician trilobites.] Osnabrücker Naturwissenschaftliche Mitteilungen, 42/43:29-80
  15. Trilobite of Russia

    This is a very nice trilobite! However, may I ask why you spell the genus (Pro)chasmps? Putting part of the name in brackets is not any part of proper taxonomic nomenclature. Don
  16. Isotelus "mafritzae"

    Awesome one mate!
  17. Isotelus "mafritzae"

  18. Earlier
  19. Isotelus "mafritzae"

    Thanks! I wish I knew! I think it is a matter of money and time. There's not as much interest (or bodies and funding) to give these the additional study and formal description they so deserve.
  20. Isotelus "mafritzae"

    Very nice specimen! I wonder how long it will take before this species is formally described and named. It seems to me that people have been using "mafritzae" for many years. Don
  21. Isotelus "mafritzae"

    This species of Isotelus is yet to be formally described. It has been given the provisional species name (suspended under quotation marks) as "mafritzae." There are two known types (A and B ) of I. "mafritzae" that occur exclusively in the Lindsay Formation: Type A have long, slender genal spines, while Type B have none. See: Rudkin, D.M. & Tripp, R.P. 1987 A reassessment of the Ordovician trilobite Isotelus, part II: Ontario species. Canadian Paleontology and Biostratigraphy Seminar, London, Ontario, Sept. 1987.
  22. Abelisaurid Premax Tooth

    A premaxillary tooth of an Abelisaurid.
  23. Collected from a temporary construction site by Mike Bruggeman in the 1990s. Acquired by trade.
  24. Pyrazisinus sulcatus

    Reference Olsson, A.A., and A. Harbison. 1953 (1990 Reprint). Pliocene Mollusca of Southern Florida with Special Reference to Those from North Saint Petersburg, with special chapters on Turridae by W.G. Fargo and Vitinellidae and Fresh-water Mollusks by H.A. Pilsbry, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Monographs 8, The Shell Museum and Educational Foundation, 457 pages, 65 plates
  25. Abelisauroid Vertebra

    A distal caudal vertebra of a theropod dinosaur. This vertebra is quite similar to Masiakasaurus from Madagaskar. So I've labeled this as cf. Abelisauroidea. There have been some reports that there are Noasaurids in the Kem Kem beds, so that might be a more specific possible identification. However at the moment just not enough is known about the Kem Kem fauna.
  26. Hemipristis serra

    Would not want that thing stabbing my flesh.... Nice tooth!
  27. Hemipristis serra

    Very large H. serra. Well done @sixgill pete
  28. Lebanon Slipper Lobster

    A fossil of a slipper lobster covered in dendrites associated with a shrimp and a fish (Gaudryella gaudryi). One can see that it is a slipper lobster due to the flattened antennas (antennules) found above the carapace. For this reason, slipper lobster are actually more related to the spiny lobsters and furry lobsters, with all three being in the infraorder Achelata. This specimen looks most similar to the recently described species of slipper lobster called Paracancrinos libanensis (Haug) due to its rectangular shape, however I am not sure if it should be labeled as such due to it being much less stocky than P. libanensis and it appearing narrower and longer. The carapace also seems longer in proportion to the abdomen than as described to be in P. libanensis. The antennules (the flattened claw like element) are petaloid in this specimen just like in P. libanensis, however this specimen has much rounder and shorter antennules than P. libanensis. This specimen does not appear to be the seemingly only other described slipper lobsters that I know of in Cretaceous Lebanon, Charbelicaris maronites (Haug), Palibacus praecursor (Dames 1886) and Acanthophoenicides peterpani (Denis) as those three are much more stockier and rounder in appearance, those three species seem to seemingly be more superficially be similiar to modern day slipper lobster. This specimen may just be a variation of P. libanensis, I'd be glad to hear your opinion on the matter. Citations Dames, W. (1886): Über einige Crustaceen aus den Kreideablagerungen des Libanon. - Z. dt. geol. Ges. 38: 551-575, Taf. 13-15; Berlin. Denis Audo, Sylvain Charbonnier; New Nisto of Slipper Lobster (Decapoda: Scyllaridae) from the Hadjoula Lagerstätte (Late Cretaceous, Lebanon), Journal of Crustacean Biology, Volume 32, Issue 4, 1 July 2012, Pages 583–590, https://doi.org/10.1163/193724012X634189 Haug, J.T., et al., The evolution of a key character, or how to evolve a slipper lobster, Arthropod Structure & Development (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2015.08.003
  1. Load more activity