Search the Community

The annual Paris, Ontario event has come yet again, and this time I left with some nice pieces for the collection. 1. A new Knightia from the Green River formation. (~16cm long) 2. A section of Orthoceras (which is not the highest quality, but was a good deal) (~12cm long) (450mya) 3. Copal amber, with some (very small) flies from Madagascar (~6cm long)(10,000yrs) 4. The brittle star Geocoma libanotica from Libya (~4.5cm)(95mya) 5. Mortoniceras sp. ammonite from Texas (~6cm)(Cretaceous, Albian stage) 6. My favourite, the skull of the sea turtle Lytoloma elegans from Morocco (14.5cm long) (~66mya)

Hi guys, i'd like to buy two Moroccan fossils but the explanations of the seller are a bit confusing for me. He told me this was an ancelecerass from the Barmien of Aourir. So i believe this is an Ancyloceras, Barremian. It is about 6 cm. The second item is a bloc with two Trilobites. The seller told me they were conihapultusse from the Devonian of Erfoud. So, i believe they are CCyphaspdae, maybe Braunops ? They are about 4 cm, including the pygidial seine. @piranha @Kane I'd like to know what you think about them guys. guys.Thank you.

Hello all! I was wondering if anyone could help me identify some shark teeth. I was gifted most of these teeth from the late @caldigger. A lot of them came from Shark Tooth Hills and a few I believe were misc teeth he had kicking around. I had labels for them at some point but a recent move found the note associated with them missing. The first 9 photos are shark teeth from Doren (@caldigger). The teeth in the last 3 photos I purchased when I worked at a local rock and gem shop. I’m pretty sure they’re plain ol’ otodus teeth. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could give me some insignt into what they could be so that I could label them appropriately All the best! -V

Some examples of fossils found in the cliffs and boulders of Malibu Creek Canyon Narrows. Oyster Bed and Moon Snail and Turritella Shell Fossils. The species guess for the Oysters based on research is Ostrea (Pycnodonte) Howelli, but I am not sure. Probably Eocene period fossils. Maybe Miocene. Nice area of Malibu creek in the Santa Monica Mountains but difficult to access.

Hey, I happened to have come into contact with some nice folks in Northwest Missouri and they were wondering what finds they were collecting off the local river near Iowa but on the Missouri side. They have found Mastodon and mammoth bones/teeth along the same river but as I am a Pennsylvanian invertebrate fossil hunter this is out of my expertise. I could only give basic answers and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on IDs and ages. Some images I took while the rest were taken by them. Ill start off with this highly weathered Mammoth/possible mastodon vert (Dont know if Ids can go further on if it's Mammoth or Mastodon): I posted this elsewhere and was suggested Cow Humerous with butcher marks? Modern Horse Maxillary? https://ibb.co/KV54V87 Bison or Cow Scapula? not sure on age Bison Atlas vert? ??? https://ibb.co/LZ4gSgn Modernish jaw? Edit: Sorry these were meant to be on another post, I assume this is a badly weathered stigmaria Root cast? still weird whatever it was. Not removing it here as some people might have already seen it.

Hello everyone! I've been swamped with work, preliminary home building plans and trying to get my collection more organized, but I still managed to pull of a small hunt at Green's Mill Run in this weekend, as well as a short trip to Aurora back in February. I hadn't really made any strong plans for either trip, but a series of different events eventually let to me heading to the area, and the timing worked out in my favor both times. The Aurora visit in February was a quick one; I got up one Saturday morning with nothing much planned for the day, but when I looked into my surplus storage trailer and saw all the excess Hardouinia echinoids and Exogyra oysters that needed to be donated, followed by receiving word there was some special things going on that morning that could have been a decent opportunity to represent the fossil club I am in, I figured it was a good day to visit. After I made my donation and spoke with some folks, I spent the rest of the morning and afternoon digging through one of the piles that was poised to be relocated soon with a local friend. I ended up finding a few nice things! This is a group shot with most of the things I found that day. Only a couple of really big highlights, I was able to find quite a few Trivia gastropods! These are some of the coolest fossil gastropods from the mine spoils that I've found there, and they're really ornate. I was told the last batch of material had a lot of them in it, so I was glad to have found some before they moved it on. And the other really cool find, a Scaphella gastropod with some trace color patterning! I've only found a handful of these gastropods as well, and the fact that it had some preservation like this was really neat. It's not at the Florida level of preservation, but it's really nice regardless. Moving on to the present, I had previously made a few short attempts to locate a modern echinoid that is almost exclusively found in North Carolina, Rhynobrissus cuneus. However, none of them bore any fruit, and with the cost of fuel and lack of time making it difficult to continue taking detours on my way back from other trips, I figured it wouldn't hurt to see if I could attempt to locate someone that wouldn't mind swapping some things for a specimen. Fortune was kind to me, and a very nice lady was willing to part with one she found in exchange for some of my spare finds in my collection! It also included spines, which was more than I was hoping for. After talking a bit, we decided to meet "in the middle" at Greenville, NC to swap the specimen. Knowing I'd be in the vicinity of the site, I packed my creek gear and hit the road for a very rainy hour and a half drive. These are a couple of photos of said specimen, alongside a copy of the official description of the species that the USNM (AKA the NMNH) printed to give out to various institutions. After wrapping up, I immediately went to my preferred Belemnite hunting spot in GMR. However, I failed to realize how much rain had fallen not just that morning, but the night before! It was just shy of 6 foot on the Tar River, and the water was considerably high and rough in that particular par of the creek, which is narrow and steep. I was a bit disappointed in the turn of events, but rather than call it quits I decided to go to the other spot I have hunted at with friends, which was wider and much more shallow. I can safely say I have now learned my lesson with the height of the river's impact on the site, it was still quite rough in that area too! Still, since I was there, I gave it my best shot and got to work on some areas without strong currents. Ultimately, it wasn't a bad visit! I found a few surprisingly nice things, as well as a few finds that I did not expect. Unfortunately, this particular part of the creek is not very good for any sort of mollusk fossils, including my favorite belemnites! They are a bit rarer, and are highly eroded, but I still was able to find one decent quality specimen. The bivalves and gastropods are also more scarce and weathered in this area, so I ended up with fewer invertebrates than I was hoping for. My preferred spot has a higher concentration of Peedee Formation finds, and there are some nice belemnites that have come out of a small 2-meter area. However, this spot is really good for vertebrate material! I found quite a few cool things there, and there are plenty of large bone chunks to be found, such as these. On to my shark teeth, these are all my Squalicorax teeth! These are some of my favorite shark teeth to find, and most of the ones I've found at this Peedee Formation site are much smaller than the ones I found on Holden Beach. Here are some unsorted teeth I found. I'm still learning shark teeth, so unfortunately a lot of my finds are currently lumped together like this. GMR teeth tend to be pretty worn down, so it makes it hard to identify a lot of the specimens I pick up. These are some miscellaneous things I found; the bottom left is a ray tooth, which I don't find quite as often there. The other two on the bottom are probably Enchodus teeth, the middle one is either a heavily worn tooth of sorts or bone fragment, and I have no idea what the top specimens are, though they looked interesting enough to hold on to. On to some of the more exciting shark teeth I found! these are pretty worn down Otodus teeth, but I always enjoy picking them up even in rough condition. This was a fairly large but worn Isurus (Mako) tooth of some variety, about 3.05 cm (1.2 inches) long. It's got a thick root but is somewhat flat, with the edges of the blade flattening out to almost a shelf of sorts where the serrations would be in other teeth. This is my first Hemipristis serra (Snaggletooth) tooth from the site that wasn't a small chunk, and it's one of the largest I've found anywhere! It's missing the root unfortunately, but is still about 2.41 cm (.95 inches) long without it. If it had the root I'd imagine it would have been at least 3 cm (1.18 inches) long. And speaking of large teeth, this is the largest Galeocerdo cuvier (Tiger Shark) I've found there, at about 2.79 cm (1.1 inches) crown width and about the same slant. It was a suprise to find to say the least, I nearly dumped it back into the creek because I didn't notice it at first! It doesn't beat my largest Holden Beach specimen (3.2 cm or 1.26 inch slant), but it's a big tooth with nice color. And for the most interesting tooth, some sort of Lamnidae shark that is missing a root, but appears to be possibly pathological! It's about 3.75 cm (1.475 inches) long as is, but it'd probably be at least 4.445 cm (1.75 inches) long if it had a root. Lacking the root makes it hard to say what it might have been, but it's definitely one of the largest teeth I've found in the creek thus far, and one of the most interesting. And lastly, this is the find that kind of caught me off guard the most: It appears to be, just based off of appearances, a specimen of Skolithos linearis. Not the most exciting trace fossil visually, but it's really interesting to me! These trace fossils were a surprise bonus to my fossil hunts in Surry County, Virginia, and I wasn't really expecting to see something of the sort here. The ones found on eroded cobbles in Virginia along the James River are said to be from the Cambrian Chilhowee Group (563-516 ma), but I'm not really sure what the age of these here would be. From the best I can tell online, they seem to have occurred throughout multiple periods of time in multiple places due to different organisms, but these look strikingly similar to the ones I saw in Virginia, albeit with the cobbles more eroded. I took a picture of the larger one next to a Virginian specimen to compare, and I highlighted the burrows with a red circle on the GMR specimen, as they are very hard to see in pictures. The longer circles are of "side section" specimens, and the smaller ones are from the ends of some running through the center of the rock from one edge to the other. The smaller cobble's specimen is a bit more obvious to see, so I didn't circle it. I haven't been able to locate any information on these fossils occurring in the area anywhere online on a superficial level, so if anyone has any insight into it, please let me know! I'd love to know if these are indeed what I am thinking they are, and what age they could possibly be if so. I might make a post on the ID forum some other time if I can borrow a camera that can take better pictures of the specimen. Anyway, that's all for me! I've got a family trip to Holden coming up shortly, and I may have some interesting opportunities to collect some different NC fossils coming up this spring; I don't have a lot of info on it, but it seems promising. I've also got a return trip to Virginia planned before the end of spring, and I can hardly wait for it!

Hey everyone – I’ve been looking through the site and found a high number of postings related to pareidolia – for obvious reasons. I found this interesting given that it is something I frequently deal with in my career, just in different ways. Pareidolia arises from a complex mix of psychological but also neurological factors. I won’t go into details of the psychological factors (there are many, perhaps a different post?) but a cursory mention of top-down-processing and suggestibility factors is warranted. Although admittedly this falls within perhaps a “softer science” there are reliable and valid personality inventories and questionnaires that objectively measure these factors to some degree. But perhaps more importantly, in the spirit of consilience, there is harder, more biologically driven evidence that helps explain the phenomenon of pareidolia. I help run a neuropsychology evaluation service in a busy metropolitan hospital. One of the more common patient demographics we see is the elderly, typically with concerns of some form of dementia. In one form of dementia, dementia from what is called Lewy-body disease (LBD- abnormal deposits of a protein called alpha-synuclein in the brain) a hallmark sign is visual hallucinations (VH), usually well-formed, with colors and even frequently three dimensional. Although VH are frequent in many psychological disorders, in this form of dementia they are notable because they reflect not a psychological demise as much as neurological (biology) one. Such happen in individuals with no psychological history whatsoever (prior to the onset of their disease), and are correlated with LBD in visual cortex and other areas of the brain used for processing of visual information (found in post-mortem studies). In fact, kinda a novel but brilliant advance in the field are pareidolia tests that try to illicit VH from varying degrees of neural stimuli. Perhaps the most well-known is called the noise pareidolia test https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154713 This test is frequently used to evaluate for dementia thought to be caused by LBD. Really interesting test. I will not publish it here, but it can be found (public domain). Essentially what it is - is a series of pictures with varying degrees of unstructured, neutral visual information pitted against pictures with structured, non-neutral information (identifiable images). Respondents have to not only correctly identify the real images but also not be duped by the foils. Studies have been fairly consistent in that patients with LBD correctly identify the real images on par with others, but incorrectly “see” something in the foils. As mentioned, such findings correlate with LBD is visual and associated brain cortices. Functional neuroimaging studies also show the same response pattern on noise pareidolia tests is correlated with hypoperfusion (in living subjects) in the same cortical areas. As a reminder, these findings occur in individuals with no known mental health history prior to the onset of their disease. No, I don’t post any of this to suggest that those who fall prey to pareidolia effects (all of us fall for it at some point) have brain damage. So, lets avoid any of those comments (in fact, after an intense day of shark tooth hunting I figurately see them EVERYWHERE). But, I do think it is an interesting analog to what has been discussed already, and perhaps can add to the pareidolia literature and musings that have already been posted. As all good scientists do, we shouldn’t be afraid or deny our biases; whether they be psychological or even neurological, but rather be open to embracing them and learning about them. This allows for a degree of predictability and pattern-recognition, which ultimately will help us from being prey to the vicious jaws of pareidolia effects. TB

I've collected in the New Jersey brooks for a long time now, and I've found a few pieces of dinosaur material over the years, but I'm interested to know if there are any other public land collecting sites in the US where one can find (and keep!) dinosaur material.

So here are all of my best finds from fossil collecting at Holden Beach. The coolest stuff to me is the Cretaceous PeeDee formation material. It gives a snapshot (albeit incomplete) of the material available in the PeeDee of NC. Usually many of these finds are sparsely distributed in this formation, but the dredging activity really helped concentrate it. 1st pic: mosasaur teeth and bones (jaw and rib fragments, verts, flipper bones), meg teeth, a horse tooth, a Pycnodontid fish mouth plate, a zipper oyster, and a mammalian astragalus, Lion's paw shells, and a cetacean cervical vertebra. 2nd pic: crow shark teeth, ray teeth barbs dermal denticle and verts, shark verts, angel shark vertebrae with prismatic cartilage, sawfish rostral teeth, enchodus teeth/jaw segments, crab claws, fish skull plates, and a croc scute 3rd pic: various sharks teeth, including great whites, bull sharks, tiger sharks, and various mackerel sharks 4th pic: soft shell turtle carapace and plastron fragments

Hello, now that I have time, I decided to create a small guide on how to recognize fake, painted and carved amphibians from the permian of europe. In this guide, you'll find examples of fake or heavily restored, or painted amphibians compared to real ones, and you will also learn some of the most common red flags on them. I hope you like it and that it will help many people not falling into amphibian traps ! Enjoy ! 1.0 Apateon pedestris (Credits: online auction site) This was done in the same way as your toddlers' paintings on the fridge (if you have a fridge or a toddler). The "bones" are probably drawn with a pencil and the preservation of the skin shadows is nothing more than some clear paint. If you look closely, no bones are evident. Here are some good examples, the first being from my collection. Now compare this to the previous one. Horrible! 1.1 1.2 Example of a perfect skull. See the difference? (Credits: Thomas Billert, Steinkern.de) Heres an example of a sideway skin shadow. Skin shadows should always follow the bones whith a bit of distance, and should feel stony and look not like clear paint. 1.3 (Credit: online auction site) 1.4 Perfect skin shadow, sligthly preserved (Credit: online auction site) 1.5 How a skeleton of Apateon should look like (Credit: Jürgen A. Boy) 2.0 Sclerocephalus haeuseri (Credits: @Amontano) That's partially real, but not, not, not much of it. The paper shale it was found in is not known for creating great skin shadows and preserving bones and limbs. That's why many amphibian fossils found in it look the same. To make it look like if they still have all their skin, bones and limbs, in most cases they are painted or, for 3D preservation, reconstructed with modeling clay and then painted to match the overall look. 2.1 Here is an example of a completely real and well prepared example. Compare this with the other one. Big difference, isn't it? (Credits: @Vertebrate) 2.2 How a skeleton of Sclerocephalus haeuseri should look like (Credit: Alamy.com) 3.0 Branchiosaurus petrolei (Credits: online auction site) These ones from france are mostly real, but youve probably guessed it: fake limbs and skin shadows ! They look like stick figures ! These were also painted whith clear paint, and sadly, they cover most of the remaining bone structure. Heres an example of another painted one, which i thougth looked to funny to omit. Three back legs ! Two real and great preserved, one fake painted stick. The head on this was also heavily painted and is non definable. 3.1 (Credits:online auction site) And here is an example of a 100% real one from my collection. You can see the completly different head shape, the toe bones on this are not preserved, but i think, you can spot the difference. This above could also be called "how to ruin a great fossil whith paint". 3.2 Example of a real one from my collection. 4.0 Discosauriscus pulcherrimus (Credits: @RobFallen) Well, this migth be a complete drawing on rock. If you look closely, you can see that the bone bend whith the rock, and its also very suspicious that the left foot is bend in, and not broken off. You can quoestion yourself, what was first: the rock, or the amphibian ? But this is a tricky and relativly good fake, many ones out there. 4.1 (Credits: online auction site) This is an example of a 100% real and 3d preserved one, really expensive. So you can compare them again, and you'll notice a difference again, mostly in the skulls. 5.0 All points and red flags together for all amphibians, also that were not featured in this guide 5.1 Skin shadows, if they dont match the overall look, shape or look painted, theyre in most cases really just painted whith some clear paint. 5.2 Bones, if most of them in one specimen dont match the shape they should be, or are dark and bend whith the rock, or not 3d, theyre mostly pencil drawings. 5.3 Skulls, if they look suspicious, google the species you're looking for and compare the results to the skull. If they look completly different and the one you think looks suspicious lacks in detail like jaw, teeth, or many bones are wrong, better run ! 5.3 Vertebras, in some specimen, the vertebrates are carved or reconstructed whith modelling clay. Carved ones are mostly circular or a square, and lack in structure and connection to the other ones. There are big, unnatural gaps in between them. The reconstructed ones are more tricky, but rarer to find. To recognize them, you should check the connection to the stone, or the other vertebras. Something looks wrong, better stay away ! 5.4 Toes, if they're missing, they're mostly just painted. You can recognize them by a different color, shine, the toe bones missing, and also that they're bending whith the rock. 5.5 Ribs, if they're straigth and not bend, thats mostly a red flag. Or if theyre bending whith the rock, better be carefull. 5.6, no red flag, but if you think theres something wrong about the specimen you want to buy, just wait, use that guide, or do the research yourself. Many fake amphibians are easy to recognize, even if you're not that experienced, and if you're unsure, just post it in the Forum, we have so many very experienced members here, they'll help further ! Have i something missed that i should mention or have you extra wishes ? Could ive done something better or should correct something ? Let me know !

Note: this thread should be viewed as a thought experiment, not necessarily fact. I am still too new to these concepts to put my foot down yet, but enjoy mentally turning them over A paleontologist at his core is an evolutionary biologist. The goal of an evolutionary biologist is to study the dynamics of evolution, and not just "species" for their own end. After all, the concept of a species only exists as a man made construct that humans use to pin down certain moments in the path of change in lineages. Where one decides to put way points (species) in that gradient doesn't matter, so long as there are at least two way points there so that comparisons can be made. If that was confusing, forget what I said for now and consider this: Animals change from one to another through cumulative steps and changes. Under textbook conditions, the graph of change from species to species is a smooth slope, not stair steps. To illustrate this point, consider the color gradient below. This gradient represents a change from one animal (blue) to another animal (red). Humans assign names to color the same way we assign species to animals. Artificially. At the top left, the image is blue. At the bottom right, the image is red. Now, at what exact point on this image does blue change to red? We can never know- there is no answer. Such a change is too gradual to point to one spot and say "now the blue just turned to red". But, to make sense of the change, we can point to the middle phase and call that phase "purple". "Purple" is simply a way marker we put down to digest the change of blue to red. I could have put such a way point down anywhere in that gradient, said "that's the moment of change!" and been equally right. As a society, we've just decided the arbitrary "purple" point is where we'll dig in, so that we may have a consensus. The same idea applies to the gradient of animal change. There's no point where one animal suddenly becomes the next, we just assign points in that gradient and call each point a "species" for our own sanity, to make sense of change. BUT! Here's the thing: In paleontology, we do not have the curse of a perfectly filled out gradient, with every animal that's ever lived represented as a fossil that can be easily traced from one to the next. We do not really "choose" our way points. We're forced to use the few animals that fossilized as way points, to fill in the gradient because they're the only data we have. I guess that makes the paleontologists job easier. For example, we know that the mosasaur Clidastes, by virtue of it simply existing, is a way point in it's respective spectrum. We can tell that the mosasaur Mosasaurus is a further developed way point in that spectrum. There are no fossils in between them, so we physically can't assign a metaphorical "purple" in between them, but then Jormungandr is discovered, and now we can. Thus, we were forced to use Jormungandr as our way point to define the Clidastes---->Mosasaurus change. ----------------------------------------------------------- This is the inherent flaw of the "missing link" argument. No one "missing step" exists between two species. Since change is gradual, one can divvy up a perfect gradient into 1000 steps and each will still be slightly different from each other. It's a game you will play for infinity. When working with fossils, you're lucky to find one step in between two others, and so when you do, that's the representative of change you're forced to acknowledge. Now, such a gradient only considered the change from the blue species to the red species. In real evolutionary environments, this gradient branches off in many directions, changing to all sorts of wonderful colors, from greens to yellows to blacks and whites. I chose the two color gradient for ease of concept. Now that we understand that way points are artificially planted in a perfect gradient, we can understand the core of phylogenetic technique. Putting just one point down in this below gradient is useless. We have nothing to compare it to, no way to quantify change. If I put two points down though, NOW I have a way to quantify change. I can say with authority that point B is more red than point A, or vice versa. _______________________ This is what "out-groups" exist for in phylogenetic analysis. An out-group is an animal that you can point to say "this animal represents the most primitive version of the group I'm interested in". The out-group is your anchor of comparison - without it, you would be trying to understand the rest of the group in a vacuum. To say "Clidastes-like mosasaurs evolved forwards, turning into Jormungandr-like mosasaurs and then to Mosasaurus-like mosasaurs" is an empty statement unless you decide on a primitive group first to enable such comparisons to be made. Among mosasaurs, the primitive condition is what's seen in land lizards like Varanus (monitor lizards). NOW I can argue that "Clidastes is most like the primitive Varanus, making Clidastes most primitive mosasaur in our group of three, and from there, Jormungandr is next, and then Mosasaurus is least like Varanus of the three, making it the most derived. So, if you want to understand change in any animal (in my case mosasaurs), you must understand the usual out-group (in my case Varanus). If you know the states of the skeleton in Varanus, you know the anchor to make comparisons off of. -The more your mosasaur of interest looks like Varanus, the less change it experienced and thus the more primitive it is. -The less your mosasaur looks like Varanus, the more change it had to undergo to accomplish that, so the more derived it is. Easy peasy. (note: this gets more complicated sometimes - derived animals can also evolve back into primitive traits. But don't worry about that for now) So, if you're interested in mosasaurs, look at Varanus. I fortunately found the absolute bible of Varanus anatomy today - I was so delighted I felt instantly obligated to make this post. Illustrated skeletal elements in great detail and descriptions of its morphology and physiology. This is invaluable to those interested in any lizards. Enjoy! https://www.notesonzoology.com/vertebrates/varanus/skeleton-of-varanus-with-diagram-vertebrates-chordata-zoology/8396

Probably Carboniferous, possibly early Permian. Could these be Brachiopods? Most of them seem to be double loved. Most are squashed so I took close up photos of the best ones.

Hello everyone,how are you? I'm new here and this is my firt post. I found this tooth lately and I am wondering what species could it be and how much would it cost. Thanks in advance.

So this happened back in late March and I’m just now getting around to posting (or boasting?) about it. At this years gem and mineral show in Loveland, Colorado I entered a display case of White River Formation fossils which I have collected mostly in Colorado over the last few years. I emphasized diversity, attempting to show the diversity of the organisms (or at least prominent organisms) in the ecosystem while aiming to educate show visitors about the under-appreciated Eocene to Oligocene transition. Over 4,000 people came to the show, and at the end of the weekend the judges selected my case for first place in the fossils category, which I was very happy with because there were some other really awesome fossil displays people had put together. For the win I received a trophy and blue ribbon. I definitely intend to display again next year at the same show!

Hello, i saw this Keichousaurus from Gouizhou, China, on auction today and think theres something wrong about it. The bones look like If they're carved from one piece, the toes look paint. But im not sure If its a complete fake. Because many of the structures seem to be real, but badly preserved. Also, i dont know how common it was in the 1980/90's to fake Keichous. Thats when it was found. So what do you think about it, is it a real and bad preserved one, a 50/50, or a complete fake ? Thanks for any advise ! (The seller didnt made that many close up pictures from different angles, sadly)

More of the same. Mostly sand tiger (our most common), a few cow sharks (my favorite; one missing serrations, but possibly a weird chip specific to that area. I'm starting to think the ones I am chasing are more fragile), gray shark, lemon, thresher, mako. The beach is attractive but tooth hunting uneven: a few teeth one day, a dozen the next, a few more the next (two or three hours around low tide each day). Coastal flooding (must be lots of rain upriver). Wind from the north (I hunt the south shores) brings in teeth but a lot of sand; south and west lowers water and uncovers teeth (although unpredictable). I cannot see well and stay near the water edge; most seem to look in the sand. Some days lots of small fossil bone chips and old glass. Minnows schooling and the beach is active (yet most fishing is a month away). Lots of people on the beach who come over to me to ID finds ("the blind leading the blind"). I find more teeth than most on the beach, but overall they seem to find nicer beach teeth. Have seen a beautiful glossy jet-black big sand tiger with cusps, many makos including one perfect one near 2" (5 cm), mostly sand tiger and "gray" shark teeth, and of course a few beautiful cow shark teeth (a big upper tooth and a nice lower lateral with six points and root). The weather has been usually warm (~80 F several days) and local beaches over-run with adults and toddlers (no teenagers who were the big teeth hunters 35 years ago; school closed this week).

What IS the difference and are there any specific elements left in the ground when these hit to let a person know one hit there?

Between 2020-23, two collectors who scuba dive for fossils throughout Florida and Georgia have recovered 5 chesapecten (including two paired valves) with morphological characteristics that signal a Miocene age. These characteristics include an acute byssal notch and a byssal fasciole that is strongly differentiated from the shell’s auricle in terms of sculpture and elevation. The largest of the adult shells also displays an active ctenolium. Additionally, one of the paired specimens displays significant gapes between valves when matched (the other pair was preserved as found by glue according to the collector and cannot be matched). These aforementioned traits are also emblatic of Miocene age for Chesapecten. These shells were recovered from the following areas in Georgia and Florida: Savannah River, Effingham County, Georgia (Collector 1) Specimen 1 (W = 108.0 mm) R valve L valve R valve - close up of byssal notch and fasciole (most of fasciole has been degraded) R valve - close up of ornamentation L valve - close up of ornamentation Profile Close up of matrix, gray sand Savannah River, Effingham County, Georgia (Collector 1) Specimen 2 (W = 101.6 mm) R valve R valve - interior R valve - close up of byssal notch and fasciole L valve - note barnacles are modern species, not fossilized L valve - interior L valve - close up of ornamentation on auricle Side profile of pair, showing gapes Front profile of pair, showing gapes Cumberland Island, Camden County Georgia (Collector 2) Specimen 3 (W = 114.3 mm) R valve, note encrustation is recent not fossilized R valve interior, thick shell apparent Close up of byssal notch and fasciole Close up of ctenolium, although modern encrustation makes it difficult to see what is going on in the ctenolium Close up of ornamentation St Mary’s River, Nassau County, Florida (Collector 2) Specimen 4 (W = 117.5 mm) R Valve R valve interior, active ctenolium and thick shell apparent Byssal notch and fasciole Close up of original sediment, note the olive and gray coloration Profile Suwanee River, Hamilton County, Florida (Collector 2) Specimen 5 (W = 69.9 mm) R valve, subadult specimen R valve interior, shell is thick for a subadult Unfortunately, stratigraphic data were not collected for these shells. However, among the Miocene strata from Coastal Georgia and NE Florida currently described in the literature, the Ebenezer Formation of Weems and Edwards (2001), of Upper Miocene (Tortonian age), appears to be the most suitable match based on the age of the Ebenezer and the characteristics of the shells found. The shells collected resemble Chesapecten middlesexensis of the Upper Miocene of Virginia and North Carolina. The Ebenezer was originally defined by Huddleston (1988) as a member of the Coosawhatchie Formation (Middle Miocene). Weems and Edwards later elevated it to formational rank based on differences in lithological and dinoflagellate composition compared to the rest of the Coosawhatchie. The Ebenezer formation consists of gray to olive-gray, fine- to medium-grained micaceous sand and stretches from South Carolina to NE Florida. Five mappable members are apparent and separable by distinct unconformities. The lower four members correspond to dinoflagellate zone DN 8, while the uppermost member corresponds to DN 9. Revision of the Ebenezer to Formational Rank from Weems and Edwards (2001) According to the dinoflagellate zonation of de Verteuil and Norris (1996), DN 8-9 aligns with the Little Cove Point Member (DN 8) and the Windmill Point Member (DN 9) of the St Mary’s Formation of Maryland and Virginia. Alignment of the Ebenezer to St Mary's Formation of MD and VA from Weems, Self-Trail and Edwards (2004) All specimens display similar characteristics which include an acute byssal notch, differentiated byssal fasciole, slightly inflated right valve, and a hinge size in adult specimens that is relatively small for adult chesapecten with the exception of Chesapecten covepointensis (DN 8 St Mary’s Formation) and in some cases Chesapecten santamaria (DN 9 St Mary’s Formation). Also, these shells could possibly be divided into two distinct variants although issues with preservation which appears to be somewhat better outside the Savannah River region may exaggerate these differences. Nevertheless, the Chesapecten collected outside of the Savannah River Region exhibit stronger, more raised ribs and have thicker, heavier shells compared to the specimens collected within the Savannah River region whose shells are thinner and ribs are lower and less pronounced. This is especially true of Specimen 1. Possibly that these variants originate from different members of the Ebenezer Formation. According to Weems and Edwards, “outside of the Savannah region, beds no older than dinoflagellate zone DN 9 occur”. This suggests that the shells collected outside of the Savannah River Region likely belong to Bed 5 of the Ebenezer Formation. Figure 3 of Weems and Edwards (2001) [shown below] suggests that someone scuba diving for fossils in the Savannah River is likely to collect in Bed 4. Therefore, it is possible that the Chesapecten specimens recovered from the Savannah River belong to Bed 4 of the Ebenezer Formation. This stratigraphic information aligns with the observed morphological differences among the specimens and tentatively supports the significance of these variations. Needless to say, more specimens are needed to confirm. Lateral Gradation of the Ebenezer from Georgia to Florida - Fig. 3 from Weems and Edwards (2001) Ward (1992) has remarked that the period between Chesapecten santamaria (DN 9) and Chesapecten middlesexensis (DN 10) represents a considerable loss of the fossil record in the stratigraphic succession of chesapecten. These Chesapecten, which bear a strong overall resemblance to Chesapecten middlesexensis while displaying traits of preceding species (smaller hinge, more differentiated byssal fasicole), could help bridge this apparent gap. Notably, no other Chesapecten in this age range outside of Maryland and Virginia have been reported in the literature. Personal Remarks The equivalency of these shells to the St Mary’s Formation, not the Eastover formation is surprising to me given the strong resemblance to C. middlesexensis. If anyone knows of any findings correlating DN 8-9 to the Eastover, or of the Ebenezer to DN 10 please let me know. Also, if anyone has any additional samples of similar shells from similar sites, even in SC please let me know. Thank you! References de Verteuil, L., and Norris, G., 1996, Miocene dinoflagellate stratigraphy and systematics of Maryland and Virginia: Micropaleontology, vol. 42 (Supplement), 172 p. Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the coastal plain of Georgia; the Miocene through the Holocene: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin, no. 104, 162 p. Ward, L.W, 1992, Molluscan biostratigraphy of the Miocene, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of North America, VMNH Memoirs, no 2, 152p. Weems, R.E, Edwards, L.E., 2001, Geology of Oligocene, Miocene, and younger deposits in the Coastal Area of Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey, no 131, 129 p. Weems, R.E, Self-Trail J., Edwards, L.E., 2004, Supergroup stratigraphy of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (Middle? Jurassic through Holocene, eastern North America): Southeastern Geology, volume 42, p 191-216

Since the topic i am searching for as apparently vanished, ill make a new one . I recall a topic on here a couple of years ago on someone having a wooden cabinet and storing their fossils in it. The issue was the wood apparently was out gassing, and damaging the fossils as a result . Does anyone else have insight on this and what kinds of wood do not mix well to store or display fossils in?

The previous thread posted was filling up and I needed a short break. The Castle Dale Museum was a nice treat as this was my first visit any of the towns along highway 10 which runs north and south on the west side of a huge Morrison Formation where the Cleveland-Lloyd dino quarry is located and endless locations of Cretaceous, Triassic and Jurassic fossils are found. These fossil locations are mostly treeless as you see in my photos so that surface finds are only a matter of walking through the formations. People think there are "secret spots" to find the best hunting grounds for big and small game, rocks, minerals, rare plants, fossils, etc. Nope...nearly if not all land has been walked on by humans. Those who hunt fossils in Utah talk of such places and In my opinion these "secret spots" or " honey holes" are only such in their own minds. Today's tech just using Google Earth mapping will find anything you look for. Crashed airplanes- simple. Morrison formations in Utah deserts...way too easy. Fossil concretions are quite visible from satellites looking down into Utah deserts. Not to poo-poo on the idea myself, people ask me all the time where I caught such a huge fish. I say I caught it in the mouth. They persist and I say in the water. They get the point and we have a laugh. Then I will share a location with them. They ask what bait. I say 'bread', they say, 'Bread?', I say bread, they repeat, 'bread?', I say yes, like a sandwich. Again the light bulb comes on, we laugh and I tell them that every source of Utah waters has big fish like this in it and most people feed ducks at those water sources. Fish are under the ducks eating bread, too. This applies to fossil hunting in Utah...where did you find that? In the desert. Between Green River and Salina or Moab and Price or even in Salt Lake City. Then I say fossils are under your feet. However, giving away your favorite spot isn't smart collecting because someone has already been there. But at the moment it can be your "secret spot" and productive site. Utah certainly has been fossil hunted for over a century continuously. Off the soap box, back to the trip which thus far has allotted me 4 hours of sleep in two days. Lets go, Steve! Here's my "secret spot". Thanks to Landsat/Copernicus imagery. The banded Morrison Formation is easily seen from space and the Cretaceous formation is like the pie crust around it. The Jurassic National Monument is also known as the Cleveland-Llyod Quarry. You can google it for more. Keeping the honest folks honest. Once I parked among the other visitors, I checked it and the gal asked if I had a park pass. I showed her mine. She sees the "Senior" diamond shaped emblem on it and says, no, that's not your card, Yes it is, here's my license to go with it. She smiling, no way you're that old. Yepperdo! I get in free and we had a nice, fun , chat about retirement, thinking good thoughts, loving life and making the most of it. The daylight caused many reflections on the glass cases. A bone in a jacket. The most touted Dino next to the Utahraptor, the Allosaurus. Say Cheese! Outdoors is mile and a half trail and the other building covering the 'big pile of dino bones'. This model seemed quite well constructed. Upon exiting, I noticed we were also leaving the Morrison formation. See any concretions? See any now? When I was close to entering the Park site, I noticed a couple getting out of the van with buckets and a pic. Well, methinks there's a blatant clue. Be sure to dial 811 before you dig! Upon driving back out of Morrison formation back onto BLM land and Cretaceous sites, I noticed the same vehicle still there over an hour later. But the couple weren't visible. I turned down the side road, stopped , put on my hat and greeted them. All went well and they welcomed me to join them. I offered to move to another site and they still welcomed the company. I showed them what I had found the day before in another town outskirts and they had not seen trace fossils here before but the guy knew that meant tunnels, burrows, footprints. They actually had bird tracks from that place in the beginning of the other thread with the snow on the summit pass. I found a nice trace fossil right away and gave it to them to get their bearing on what to look for. They were excited and the gal found 4-5 quickly and was very pleased with them. They had been at this location several times and were about to leave but suggested I search the hills and into the washes and ditches. I helped lift a huge concretion into their vehicle and they did the same for me as they left. Bending down to lift their concretion I saw this piece under his foot. I did take a few pics but enthusiasm won out as it always does and the picture taking falls to the wayside. A pic of his find. A pic of mine. ...and more... The Heavy. I'll get the bucket contents sorted ASAP and add those. Gotta apply some generous amounts of CA to some pieces. Steve PS - Oh, I early forgot! While I was at the Nat. Park I was traipsing along with a family, mom, dad and twin boys. The boys talked fossils the whole trip according to the mom. They were from Georgia and were going to the Natural History Museum in Salt Lake the next day before flying out. I said your boys will love it. It's like a 100 of this collection. One boy asked was this a fossil - holding a polished rock. His mom said it's a rock, I said , yes it is, but it could be a fossil gastrolith. A what? the boys exclaimed. Gastro= stomach, lith = rock. A stomach rock. Dinosaurs swallowed rocks to help grind and digest their food, just like birds do. But if you stop by my car on the way out, I'll give you a for real fossil each. I gave them my Birgella sp. gastropod fossils collected the day before. They were happy.