Leaderboard

  1. Fossildude19

    Fossildude19

    Administrator


    • Informative Content

      235

    • Content count

      16,536


  2. abyssunder

    abyssunder

    Regular Members


    • Informative Content

      159

    • Content count

      4,175


  3. ynot

    ynot

    Regular Members


    • Informative Content

      156

    • Content count

      6,930


  4. Al Dente

    Al Dente

    Regular Members


    • Informative Content

      119

    • Content count

      2,375



Popular Content

Showing most informative content since 01/24/2017 in all areas

  1. 12 likes
    With the new data, the Paleozoic machaeridians could be excluded. I think, they might be fragments of Trachyceras multituberculatum ammonites, or plant material like Ctenozamites, Equisetites, etc., as they are mentioned in WANG XIAOFENG et al. THE LATE TRIASSIC BLACK SHALES OF THE GUANLING AREA, GUIZHOU PROVINCE, SOUTH-WEST CHINA: A UNIQUE MARINE REPTILE AND PELAGIC CRINOID FOSSIL LAGERSTA¨TTE. Palaeontology, Vol. 51, Part 1, 2008, pp. 27–61.
  2. 10 likes
    It is a dorsal fin spine from a hybodont shark. You might be able to identify it to species.
  3. 9 likes
    Well then you can relay to the finder that this bone is quite definitely a sirenian rib fragment as thought. In particular it is from the now extinct species called the Florida Sea Cow (Metaxytherium floridanum). These bones do not have the spongy cancellous (trabecular) inside which normally contain bone marrow in other bones and are instead solid right through to the core. This makes them preserve very well (so they are common finds in the Peace River) as well as making them very distinctive to identify. More information may be obtained here: https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/metaxytherium-floridanum/ Cheers. -Ken
  4. 9 likes
    Hi folks! I'm a little late to the party here, but this was posted on a popular fossils website. I apologize for the delay in posting, but I couldn't take a photo without having the website's name exposed. This specimen was listed as a very elusive T.rex hand claw, at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, it is an Anzu wyliei foot claw and not a T.rex hand claw. Misidentifying these two claws is a very common mistake. The second photo is the Anzu wyliei toe claw from my collection. If any of you purchased this claw, please contact the seller. Information came to me last night by member @Troodon, who knows I'm always snooping around the Internet like a hound dog for T.rex material.
  5. 9 likes
    I checked p162 in Big Sky and I can see the similarity you mention in the drawing, but in 3D hadrosaur cervicals are extremely different. For example: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141304 For one thing, cervical vertebrae should have a very large neural canal for the spinal cord. This vert has a very small neural canal, and is rather elongated, suggesting a caudal (if it was dinosaur, but I don't think it is, plus your vert is a bit crushed in that area, so the neural canal might be larger than it seems). Also, look at the orientations of the prezygapohysis (superior articular process) and postzygapophysis (inferior articular process). Prezygs face up, post zygs face down. That means the very first photo in this thread (shown below) has the anterior to the left, with the prezyg facing up, and posterior to the right, with the postzyg facing down. So it is concave anteriorly, and convex posteriorly (termed a procoelous vertebra). However, hadrosaur and tyrannosaur cervicals are opisthocoelous - convex anteriorly, and concave posteriorly. Crocodile verts are procoelous like this one. So, this is likely a crocodilian vert, not dinosaur. It is certainly a large croc for the Hell Creek. Not nearly as big as Deinosuchus from the Judith River Formation, though. Here are some images from the Deinosuchus description: Holland, WJ. 1909. Deinosuchus hatcheri, a new genus and species of crocodile from the Judith River Beds of Montana. Annals of the Carnegie Museum VI(1):281-294. https://archive.org/details/DeinosuchusHatcheriANewGenusAndSpeciesOfCrocodileFromTheJudithRiv The figured Deinosuchus vertebra is 14 cm long (anterior-posterior), which is much larger than your vert, but that's fine because Deinosuchus lived in the Campanian Judith River Formation, not the Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation. Still a very large croc for the Hell Creek, but not outrageous.
  6. 8 likes
    This morning I had an unexpected day off from work and decided to head to Gainesville's creeks. I've done this many, many times before as I've been hunting fossils most of my life- Today I was approached by a member of City of Gainesville Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs. I had only just arrived and started to dig below the waterline as I always do; but she educated me that there is a rule within the municipal city limits of Gainesville, stating that "no designated city park should allow creek access or digging in creeks within park boundaries." This is part of a larger conservation and erosion control effort by local habitat management. I made sure to be very cooperative and polite (as you ALWAYS should be), and I left after a very pleasant conversation with her. She agreed to research the issue and find out if there are ways to get access to the creeks within park boundaries via permit etc. Meanwhile, I called the number listed on my Florida fossil hunting permit and verified that the information I had been given was correct. The only "public access" to any Gainesville creeks is from the roadside at any point where the creeks intersect the road. From there, you can access them without touching private property. You must not go on the banks on either side as that IS private property. You may wade the creek and hunt, but never within a city park or private property without permission. I am literally posting this while I sit in a parking lot reviewing maps for alternate access. In the spirit of responsible hobby-hunting, conservation of Florida's wetlands and education, I wanted to share this information with you all. Happy Hunting!
  7. 8 likes
    I came across this composite turtle skull and thought it was a nice example that I should share. This looks like a pretty classic example of how Moroccan reptile skulls are faked. There's a number of pieces of real bone that are embedded into what is possibly partially real matrix. the lower jaw looks like the two pieces might actually be real lower jaw pieces. But it's hard to tell if the pieces belong together. The main skull itself though is kinda of a monstrosity. Notice how between the plateaus of bone there are areas that lack any detail. These areas are completely fabricated. The pieces of bone also seem to stick out a little at weird angles. So it is likely that these are mostly just random pieces of bone made to look like a real skull. A scenario that is also very common is when partial real skulls get stuff added to them to make them look more complete. Those are some nice photos though.
  8. 7 likes
    Hi shiner! I have to agree with the others that what you have is a very cool-looking crinoid - see image below (from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/echinodermata/crinmm.html) as a comparison to what you have: Red - calyx, Yellow - stem I looked into where Estill Co, KY is and I think the rock there is probably Ordovician (or perhaps Silurian or Devonian, depending on exactly where you collected your specimen) - see below (from http://www.uky.edu/KGS/geoky/) for a geologic map of Kentucky: Crinoids would definitely be found in Ordovician/Silurian/Devonian rocks - I find some up in my area where the rock is Ordovician in age and they are apparently a relatively common find in Kentucky, too. See http://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/index.htm - this website may be useful to you since it covers a bunch of information regarding the fossils of your state. I hope that this helps! Keep hunting and showing us your awesome finds!!! Monica
  9. 7 likes
    I don't believe you are looking at a Spinosaurid jaw for several reasons. Attached photo of one from my collection shows an edge/lip running the full length of the mandible, it's missing on the one for sale Spinosaurid jaws also do not have as a prounced hinge where the teeth are as the one being offered. It's tapers slowely and the teeth are distant from the hinge. Could be wrong. Aside from this offering the seller is the same individual offering the sculpted Spinosaurus hand claw that LordTrilobite posted earlier. So always wise to ask before you buy.
  10. 7 likes
    Hi all, a new listing just went up for a pair of Siamosaurus teeth. Siamosaurus teeth are extremely rare. I might be tempted, if not for the fact they are misidentified fossil corals, possibly Rugosa family. You can tell by the vertical lines running down the body, the lack of the distinct theropod teeth shape, the huge size of the fossils, and the poor provenance data (they are identified as Miocene). I have messaged the seller about this mistake. Take care to warn anyone you know who's looking for rare dinosaur teeth.
  11. 7 likes
    Note: I won't post any pictures here because even with censoring and cropping, the dealer/website is too easily identifiable. As if buying properly identified fossils couldn't get any harder, I was just directed to a extremely professional website that had whole sections on identification of fake fossils, how to identify between various Moroccan dinosaurs, even books on the topic! Every fossil sold there had its own page giving details of said fossil and why it was identified as that particular species etc. I did a search on the raptor section. Less than 10% were true dromaeosaurids. What grates me is that any uninformed buyer would look at the website and go, "They sure know their stuff. Wow! I even get a certificate of authenticity on my fossil!" Cue a buyer spending wasted money. There is great misinformation today in the fossil market, especially Moroccan ones. Sometimes, both diggers and dealers are mistaken about the ID of their fossils thanks to too much hearsay and information passed down from one another. To sum it up: 1) A professional-looking website doesn't guaranteed good IDs 2) Certificates mean nothing. Anyone can print one out 3) Even if a dealer/website tries to teach you how to identify a wrongly-IDed fossil, ensure they practice what they preach. This website pointed out correctly that for raptors, the inner serrations were larger than outer ones. The teeth he sold however, did not follow this rule. Most likely he copied it from somewhere 4) The dealer being a member of AAPS doesn't mean he knows what he's selling 5) "Everyone else is unreliable! Getting from us is the only way to make sure you know you are getting the correct fossil! We visit the dig sites ourselves, we vet every specimen." Sounds familiar? Some dealers resort to fear tactics to make themselves the only legit-looking source. 6) Raptors, dinosaur eggs, tyrannosaurids are some of the fossils that are harder to properly identify. When buying one, be extra cautious about the ID If in doubt, take some pics and show it to the forums. There are plenty of experts here, we are more than happy to help spot for fakes. As the saying goes, caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".
  12. 7 likes
    Here it is, the show booth layout! What do yah think? did we get enough fish this year? I am kind of fond of the table, it is fully lit all the way around the inside with LED lights!
  13. 7 likes
    Back in October of last year I donated some Cookiecutter Shark (Isistius sp.) teeth to the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) after learning that this taxon was absent from their collection. I soon learned that this genus of shark had not been previously (scientifically) known from Florida. Amateur collectors and members of this forum have known (for some time) that Isistius teeth could be found with regularity at the locality we refer to as "Cookiecutter Creek" on TFF. The initial donation sparked the interest of a PhD student at UF who is interested in writing a paper about the Florida locality for this shark genus. In an effort to provide additional specimens beyond those I originally donated back in October I recently returned to the creek to collect at different locations and kept track of the specimens I found in 1000g samples of the micro-matrix to get a quantitative idea of the density at different gravel patches at this locality. Last week my wife Tammy and I managed to find some free time in our busy schedules to join the FLMNH and volunteer at the Montbrook dig site (trip report coming soon). I was able to hand deliver to Dr. Richard Hulbert another 137 specimens of Isistius from my recent micro-matrix sorting (many complete but also all of the fragmented specimens). All of the other associated micro fossils found while sorting over 72 kg of micro-matrix were donated as well to provide an understanding of the associated faunal assemblage. When I have some time I hope to return to the creek to collect some of the finer sediment in an effort to locate an upper Isistius tooth. These are even smaller than the tiny lowers and being only 0.5 x 1.0 mm in size are at the same scale as the sand in the creek. It will definitely be a needle in the haystack type of a search with long odds and a near zero chance of success but I'm always up for a challenge. I had also contacted Dr. Roger Portell (Collection Director, Division of Invertebrate Paleontology, FLMNH) to inquire if any of the Lovenia woodsi echinoids I was fortunate enough to collect and export (legally) near Melbourne, Australia would be of interest as comparative specimens for the collection. Roger said he would appreciate some of these upper Miocene echinoids so I picked out 10 nice specimens and was able to add something to the invert collection at FLMNH as well. I kept a few specimens for myself so I'll always be able to remember a fun fossil-collecting side trip during our trip to Australia. It is nice to know that someone studying Miocene echinoids in the future may benefit from our collecting efforts. Here's a link to our Beaumaris trip report for those who have not seen it: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/70070-quick-trip-to-beaumaris-cliffs-australia/ Cheers. -Ken
  14. 7 likes
    Just a brief update on the status of Sharktooth Hill (Ernst Quarries) in California. I meet with member Lee Taylor from South Carolina for a dig last week to do a bit of digging for teeth since he was coming out here for work and the majority of his tooth hunting was done underwater. The only quarry available was Slow Curve. Not much was found be either of us ( I. did get the largest I. planus that I have found there 2 1/8" ). There was another small family group digging there as well that day, six of us in all. Due to the heavy rains we have been encountering this winter, all the roads leading to the other quarries have been washed away and Rob stated he has no plans to repair them. Instead, he stated sometime this summer, he wants to build a road that goes directly to East Quarry from the entrance, thus bypassing that long winding "trail" to the distant quarries. With plans to excavate parts of East Quarry similar to what was done to Slow Curve to establish premium areas to dig. So to sum up this storyline, if you are planning to go to the Ernst Quarries "Sharktooth Hill area" anytime, keep in mind the other quarries are no longer available to visit and Slow Curve is the only one open. At least until something can be done to create a new road to access them.
  15. 7 likes
    The first fossil is a fish tooth plate, maybe from Paralbula. The second is not drumfish, it is a Pycnodontid, possibly Anomoeodus. The next two fossils are Cylindracanthus.
  16. 7 likes
    Not a cast, fella's . . . the actual burrow wall cemented with calcite or, more probably, with silica.
  17. 7 likes
    I brought you all a present if this thread is still alive. @JohnJ @Jesuslover340 I know a couple people had seen this pre-prep that may want to see it now!
  18. 6 likes
    Looks similar to the trace fossil (ichnofossil) Cruziana. Cruziana is a trace left by trilobites travelling on the ocean floor. Very cool. Regards,
  19. 6 likes
    The mystery solved: Agaricocrinus americanus It is actually known as the "Mushroom Crinoid" Meyer, D.L., & Ausich, W.I. (1997) Morphologic variation within and among populations of the camerate crinoid Agaricocrinus (Lower Mississippian, Kentucky and Tennessee): Breaking the spell of the Mushroom. Journal of Paleontology, 71(5)896-91.pdf
  20. 6 likes
    It looks similar to Venustodus. Venustodus has the same raised rim and similar cusps.
  21. 6 likes
    Hey all, yesterday my wife (CCNHM collections manager Sarah Boessenecker) and I wrote about some of our recent finds from Folly Beach, SC. Collecting fossils there is quite easy, and if you're there for non-shark teeth, there's essentially no competition since that's all anyone ever looks for there. The fossils of Folly Beach have never been written up, and I'm getting more and more curious about them - particularly fossil marine mammals. If anyone finds marine mammal earbones out there, I'm dying to take a look! We've already gotten a nice donation from Ashby Gale, Edisto SP ranger, of a pygmy sperm whale periotic. Here's the blog post with some images of our recent finds - including my first giant armadillo scute (Holmesina), an Alligator osteoderm, various shark and mammal teeth, and a snake vertebra. I've made a plan to go out to Folly once a week this entire semester, since it's only a 15-20 minute drive from College of Charleston (a very nice escape from campus and teaching) http://blogs.cofc.edu/macebrownmuseum/2017/02/03/friday-fossil-feature-it-would-be-folly-to-pass-this-site-up/
  22. 6 likes
    I'm not familiar with this particular fossil, but it reminds me of a pair of fused frontal bones from the skull of a fish.
  23. 6 likes
    I see a large number of posts where the poster asks for id help with a fish vertebra. Most times a lot of information is given, but unfortunately not all of it is correct. There are bits and pieces of fish vertebrae id information in a number of books, papers, articles, websites etc. but nothing that I’ve seen that I would consider to be comprehensive. The below paper is a rather obscure one but which I’ve found extremely helpful with the id of extant shark vertebrae which also helps with the fossil ones: A Guide to Identifying Shark Centra from Southeastern Archaeological Sites Kozuch and Fitzgerald 1989 https://www.academia.edu/5653950/A_Guide_to_Identifying_Shark_Centra_from_Southeastern_Archaeological_Sites_Kozuch_and_Fitzgerald_1989?auto=download I have thousands of shark, ray, sawfish, and bony fish vertebrae but unfortunately I just don’t have the time to take pictures of them. I see all kinds of generalizations about the differences between these types of vertebrae that get included in fish vertebra id post replies that are just not universally true based upon my personal readings and collection. Below are a few generalizations from the above paper: If you are aware of other papers, articles, websites etc. that would help TFF members better understand these vertebrae could you please add links to them in replies to this post? Marco Sr.
  24. 6 likes
    My grail has finally arrived! This tooth was found and prepared by a very experienced dinosaur fossil hunter in the Hell Creek Formation of Perkins County, South Dakota, on private property. Although there was a T.rex skull and specimen found near the same location, it was not associated. The tooth measures 8.25 inches, and has no restoration except for some minor crack fill on the tooth crown. Thanks for looking! .
  25. 6 likes
    Instead of trying to describe it. I just made a rough drawing of what you have. Hopefully this is clear enough.
  26. 6 likes
    Wow. Pretty disappointing, in my opinion. So, ... now, ... we have to do a reverse google image search, to try and make sure we're not being tested, "experimented" upon, ... or played? Thanks for making the point. However,... I really do not agree with the way this was done. It would never have even occurred to me, to try this type of "experiment". I was under the impression this was for sale now, and given that knowledge, based my answer on the laws governing sales of vertebrate fossils from China. I will be more careful in my pronouncements from now on, ... or maybe, I just won't voice an opinion any longer.
  27. 6 likes
    Daniel, you made a good point. And yes, your thread proved that some of us are too presumptuous by concluding that this specimen looks too good to be true, so it's fake. But I do not appreciate what you did. Members here often take their time out to search through the internet, going through similar specimens and old threads in order to better offer advice to others here. Maybe we aren't always correct on our verdict, but we try to be fair, and we do so on good will. I wouldn't like us to have to fear being part of another experiment. Please don't do this again.
  28. 5 likes
    No mystery here. These are both bivalve fossils (very common in the local formations). The larger of the two looks like it has been worked over with a dremel or other aggressive prep tool.
  29. 5 likes
    I would hope that everyone who spends any time here is aware of the importance of keeping good locality data. However you should be aware that most collectors do not have the situation you do, where vast thicknesses of strata are laid out like a layer cake on mountainsides and precise records of the exact layer a specimen originated from is both possible and essential. On the US gulf coast, much collecting is done by screening river gravel for ex situ specimens eroded from "outcrops" that often are all but invisible in the river bed or banks. At Greens Mill Run, a popular site in North Carolina, one can find a mix of Cretaceous, Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene fossils in the same screen-load of gravel. From the point of view of the stratigrapher, such "float" would be a complete waste of time. Does that mean that people are wasting their time collecting from such a deposit? I would not see it that way. Along the same line, many exposures are quarries or construction sites, where fossils from different layers are frequently mixed. The famous SMR Aggregates shell pit in Sarasota, Florida was like that. Literally tons of over a thousand species of beautifully preserved shells from the Pliocene Tamiami Formation were dug up and, except for the few that were collected, used for road and construction fill. There were several layers or "units" exposed in the quarry, but generally one could not access the quarry walls and collecting was done from the massive piles of shells that had been dug up, dumped in huge mounds, and were awaiting transport to the crusher. I can say that my specimens came from a specific location and formation, but I cannot say if they came from unit 5 or unit 7. I don't think that makes them worthless. Regarding "high-grading", I think that also has to be taken in context. At the Hungry Hollow site in Ontario, I can pick up literally hundreds of specimens of Mucrospirifer arkonensis (from the Arkona Shale) and Mucrospirifer thedfordensis (from the Widder Member of the Hungry Hollow Formation) in an hour or two. Most are damaged, lacking the extreme tips of the hinge. Is one to be faulted for choosing the more intact specimens? Collecting every specimen or at least a large representative sample makes sense if you are collecting a new location, or doing research related to biostratigraphy. Several species could be masquerading under a similar external appearance for example. However it is not reasonable to expect every collector to have the resources to make a detailed analysis of every specimen from every location, including grinding serial sections, as one would do in a well funded research project. I think it is entirely appropriate and admirable that amateurs would have the interest to try to learn about the fossils they collect, and assemble a well curated representative collection, especially considering that this is (for them) a hobby driven by interest, not a full-time profession supported by grant funding. I also think it could be a mistake to assume people are not recording detailed locality data just because they don't post that data together with their photos on this forum. I think it's prudent to be somewhat vague about the locality in a public internet forum, as I have seen sites get decimated or closed following publication of specific information. I see more and more paper in journals such as the Journal of Paleontology that state "detailed locality data available on request to qualified researchers", unlike times past when very detailed locality data was the norm. Don
  30. 5 likes
    I am fairly confident this is eroded piece of the Upper Cretaceous rudist, Durania. Here is quick shot that shows the similar characteristics.
  31. 5 likes
    Much better photos, thank you. This is clearly a crinoid calyx, possibly Agaricocrinus as has been stated by others. You can see the sutures (boundaries) between some of the calcite plates that make up the specimen. Also you can see the elongated openings where the arms were attached to the calyx. Your specimen belongs to a large group called Camerate crinoids, which were characterized by a fairly rigidly fused calyx; after death the calyx would often hold together whereas the stem and arms, being flexible and so made of less fused ossicles (small plates) would disarticulate. For this reason, camerates are often found as the isolated calyx (like your specimen); intact specimens with the arms and stem are much rarer. This is most likely a Mississippian aged fossil, indeed the Mississippian is sometimes called the "age of crinoids" because of the abundance and diversity of those fossils. The central US, including Kentucky and surrounding states, were covered by a shallow, warm sea during much of the Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, and some of the Pennsylvanian periods of the Paleozoic Era, and Kentucky is well known for its diverse fossils from those periods. Don
  32. 5 likes
    Your photos are, unfortunately, very out of focus. Can you try again? Chances are that bright light, such as daylight, will help, but you should also ensure the fossil is in focus and not the background. Your fossil is certainly not a mushroom, as they are extremely soft bodied and consequently are almost unknown as fossils. Also the rocks in your area are marine, and too old for basidiomycete fungi. I'm fairly sure your fossil is actually a crinoid calyx, which is a very cool fossil, but I can't be sure without better photos. Oh, and welcome to the forum! Don
  33. 5 likes
    Sadly these are both nice teeth but have indeed been placed. The upper tooth has been attached using typical moroccan plaster and is a Maxillary tooth. The bottom tooth looks to have been inserted, as this is not how they naturally sit in the root area, and is a premaxilarry tooth. Both teeth are Prognathodon however.
  34. 5 likes
    It is an epiphysis from a vertebra, possibly whale. This is a plate on an end of a vertebra that allows for growth, when an animal is mature the epiphysis fuses with the vertebra.
  35. 5 likes
    Hello everyone, This post is really late, but better late than never right! Several months ago, I posted a tooth that I found in Late Mississippian Pennington Formation in East Tennessee in the Fossil ID section, whereupon I was referred to some experts in the UK. After a conversation with two experts about the tooth I had found, it was identified as a Megactenopetalus sp. tooth, an extremely rare and unique chimaeraform from the Carboniferous and Permian shallow seas. This type of tooth is not only remarkable because of its rarity, but also because it fills a niche in the chondricthyan family tree that few other genera fit into. It is a petalodontid...with dentine tubule structures. For those who are familiar with Paleozoic shark teeth, the bradyodonts are known for these features, often appearing on "crusher" teeth as small little dots on the surface of the teeth. The petalodonts on the other hand, are almost exclusively smooth, without exposed dentine tubules. One of the exceptions to this is the Megactenopetalus, which sports a pallet of petalodont-shaped, but bradyodont-textured teeth. Also, this tooth is most likely the earliest occurence of this genera. The majority of the teeth found are from the Permian, with a few exceptions coming from the Pennsylvanian. This tooth was found in a slab of tan mudstone, which eroded from near the top of the Pennington Formation, very near the base of the Pennsylvanian contact of the Raccoon Mountain Formation. It was found near a marine Psephodus sp. tooth, and also a branch of terrestrial Lepidonendron root, indicating to me that this animal likely inhabited a subtidal lagoon setting, which is also further supported by several professional studies that have been performed on the Pennington Formation. Shortly after posting it here on TFF, a member here (Carl) who works at the American Museum of Natural History expressed the museum's interest in acquiring this tooth. I then filled out the paperwork, packed it up carefully, and shipped it to its new home at AMNH! I must say, I was sad to see it leave my collection, but I thing it went to a great home and will be studied sometime in the future. It is now classified as AMNH FF 21096! Some information and photos of the tooth prior to donation. Megactenopetalus sp. crown and root Late Mississippian (Early Carboniferous) Pennington Formation East Tennessee, USA 2016 Roughly 1cm per crown
  36. 5 likes
    Actually, age and mineralization are independent of each other. Some things can mineralize in a year and there are examples of 80-million-year-old wood that will still burn, i.e., it is not mineralized at all.
  37. 5 likes
    Lots of high-end trilobites. I brought a handful of nicer pieces back, and then plenty of solid common species. There were a handful of pretty convincing fakes, though! I hope you enjoyed the pictures!
  38. 5 likes
    After emailing with Carl and Dr. Maisey, I have decided to donate the fossil to the American Museum of Natural History. I am really excited to have this opportunity. Big thanks to everyone for their help. Dom
  39. 5 likes
  40. 5 likes
    So two things: 1) Don't conflate body length with body mass. Even sauropod dinosaurs have a series of large air sacs lightening up the neck; for dinosaurs will have a much lower amount of mass per unit length relative to marine reptiles. 2) It is true that there is a lower maximum body mass observed in marine reptiles and a higher maximum body mass for dinosaurs, suggesting less of an extreme body size difference than in extant mammals. This may reflect physiological differences; we don't know much about the physiology of marine reptiles (IIRC), and many nonavian dinosaurs were not completely endothermic judging from growth studies - I've heard poikilothermic used before. 3) Note however that body mass is closely related to sea surface temperature. SST was much higher during the Mesozoic than it is today, or even higher than during the Cenozoic for that matter; cool temperatures permit gigantism in marine mammals, as endotherms produce a lot of excess heat; many whales, dolphins, and pinnipeds are literally too insulated to survive for long periods of time at the equator, for example. In the Miocene we see examples of marine mammal dwarfism, with a smaller body size coinciding with an uptick in temperature. Think of it this way: warm waters will generally "cap" maximum size and lower minimum size, and cool waters will cap minimum size and permit larger sizes. In baleen whales, body size does not really exceed 10-15 meters until the Plio-Pleistocene - so extreme gigantism is a relatively recent development judging from the fossil record.
  41. 5 likes
    French nest Embryonic cave bears
  42. 5 likes
    Indy's comeback post make me return to the topic. More details, with the original description of Evactinopora species, original plates and links to the documents, could be found here : Looking back to edupaleos post, I think he's right about the ID. They look like Evactinopora in transverse section, but the geological time is wrong for that. The location of the find is near Vic (roughly 20km north to Vic, as I estimate). Actually, they're sponges embedded in matrix in transverse section view. The correct names are Pseudoguettardia thiolati Moret, 1925, and Scyphia quinquelobata Archia, 1850 - synonyms of Guettardiscyphia thiolati Archiac, 1846 (glass sponge) . Alternative combination: Guettardia thiolati Some images here and here . Pseudoguettardia thiolati Eocene, Bartonian provenance: Barcelona size: 9 cm Other reference : here
  43. 5 likes
    Here's a paper on Carboniferous megaspores. The spore in Figure 20 is 1500 microns (the right size) and looks very similar. Yours is a much nicer example. Setosisporites cydotuberosus http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/44143
  44. 5 likes
    Hi all ... Been away for a few years While looking at recent posts...I noticed the title of this post Possible Evactinopora radiata or echinodermata? I have a website devoted to the study of Evactinopora radiata Mississippian - Fern Glen Formation - Jefferson County, Missouri For comparison Click Here or http://www.lakeneosho.org/Evactinopora/index.html
  45. 5 likes
    A recent topic has indirectly provided me the opportunity to highlight a world class collection. A few years ago, Thomas (oilshale) was one of several members that were passionate, instructive, and extremely patient in the development of The Fossil Forum's Collections section. As a benefit of its creation, we have been steadily and quietly exposed to his incredibly diverse collection. High quality specimens, specimens from world-renown locations, and rare specimens are very well documented in a collection of personal finds and acquisitions. We are honored that Thomas has chosen to share these fossils on TFF. On rare occasions and on a purely subjective basis, Admins on TFF will award The Golden Drool Bucket. The award has evolved to encompass 'off the charts', museum-worthy finds; a best of the best, stunning and well documented collection; or world class preparation on a world class find. Thomas, your Collection is "stunning and well documented", "world class", "museum-worthy" and deserves the recognition of The Golden Drool Bucket. Thank you for sharing it, and congratulations, sir! @oilshale
  46. 5 likes
    a nice bird Procellaria skull albertross took a few days and two photos of a nice hash of Procellaria albertross bones look about a week from north island new zealand all work done with an aro air pen
  47. 5 likes
    The tooth looks like a lateral Scapanorhynchus texanus (goblin shark).
  48. 5 likes
    Tim is correct. On the right side is Chesapecten jeffersonius from the Sunken Meadow Member of the Yorktown Formation. This is also called Zone 1 Yorktown and is Lower Pliocene roughly 5 million years old. One the left side is Cheaspecten madisonius from the Rushmere Member of the Yorktown Formation. The Rushmere Member is included within Zone 2 Yorktown and is Upper Pliocene in age approximately 3.2 million years old. Both species are guide fossils to their respective units. In general the Rushmere was warmer than the Sunken Meadow accounting for some of the differences you might see. I have a description between the two units in my blog here Rushmere. Ignore the picture quality. The forum server switch a few years ago does not allow me to edit older entries. Mike
  49. 5 likes
    I think ultimately something like this should be framed as an 'experiment' since given the facts carefully articulated by @Fossildude19 these fossils are factually 1) Banned from export 2) Often hosted on sites like Ebay .. and unless it is a 'reproduction' (aka. fake) the seller could possibly run afoul of Ebay's TOS or the law. So, all of the members .. knowing only what they were told gave an immediate understanding that what you were seeing was probably a fake fossil. It was a Red Herring at best, and knowing that they were used as unwitting participants of an experiment erodes trust. Apologies aside .. You must understand that it mostly will erode trust in anything that you might want to have evaluated in the future, and this is for most of us, a hobby that we enjoy to share for those willing to treat each other in a like manner. (ie. the old adage treat others as you would like to be treated stands) Now, if you had told us that you already knew that this was a fake or a real fossil ... (that I might point out even you believed to be fake before looking through a microscope ) and wanted to see if we could guess based on this partially substandard image. You may have had many more cautious appraisals, especially if you mentioned its current location. And you would most certainly be asked to provide better photos from obtuse angles, close ups of the matrix etc .... It would have been possibly sifted over for any possible clues .. before anyone made any definitive statement. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Brett PS. Not sure it was a good experiment. You have to control for bias given the limited information.
  50. 5 likes
    Here are examples of real hadrosaur eggs Example of a hatchling window. Most hadrosaur eggs have this "hidden" with a matrix base 1) There must be eggshells present. If an egg is completely smooth, then it isn't real. These eggshells should have a pebbly texture, and look like they can be pried out (not that you should try to). Real example below: 2) There should be cracks within the egg. Certain factories in China have mastered the egg of crafting fake eggs, but their cracks are shallow or drawn. Real example below: 3) There should be imperfections within the egg. I am talking about deformities, crushed shapes, inconsistent colors, cracks running through it, patches of repairs, or with hatchling windows. Also, true eggs are never perfectly spheroid. Real examples below: 4) True eggs have nothing to hide. Fake eggs may have a thin layer of matrix scrubbed over the surface to seem as though there are fresh off the ground. Prepped eggs have the matrix removed. Unprepped eggs may have a crusty matrix on the top which may require special tools to remove. Real example below: After prep 5) No two eggs are exactly alike. If an egg you are considering looks as if it has an exact clone elsewhere, it's probably fake. China factories churn out these things by the hundreds.If in doubt, ask the forum before purchasing. There are plenty of experts here glad to help. Have fun shopping!