Search the Community

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/some-earth-s-first-animals-including-mysterious-alien-looking-creature-are-spilling-out

Hello, friends! Not too much to go on, so I'm not expecting a definite id, really, but if anyone does have any guesses, I'd be really grateful. I received this as part of a gift and it was simply labelled "Trilobite - Nevada". The only other information the sender could tell me was that it had been found by someone else in "a canyon", not much help. I can tell you that the trilobite is 3 cm long (what's left of it) and is preserved in a soft, very thinly layered pale grey shale. It's probably going to be Lower to Middle Cambrian, maybe an olenellid? Any help would be most appreciated. Thank you! Cheers, Adam @piranha

I have noticed lately that a lot of fossils of so called Sabellidites cambriensis are popping up on a lot of sites for sale. They're sold as basal annelid worms that arose during the terminal Ediacaran. They predominantly are coming from the Lontova formation, dated at ~541-545 Mya, which is more or less the Ediacaran/Cambrian boundary. I would think that such fossils would be of great interest to researchers since, assuming they are basal annelids, they would represent one of, if not the first, appearances of a modern phylum in the fossil record. Yet the literature on this species is very sparse, with no more than half a dozen papers having been published since it's initial description in 1926. Does anyone here have any information on this subject?

This is a piece that I picked up on a geology field trip years ago in eastern New Mexico. I apologize that I have unfortunately lost the field notebook that contains more specific location information, but I am hoping to get in contact with the teacher that took us there for other reasons and might be able to provide additional information if I can ask him. The section was Cambrian to Ordovician in age: it started with abundant stromatolites, then progressed into thrombolites and finally siliciclastics disappeared during the Ordovician sea level high-stand. If my memory serves, I believe these were found from relatively low in the section and so should be Cambrian, but it has been long enough (about 12 years) that I would not stake my life on that. Since it may be hard to tell from the photos, these are essentially organic material on the surface of the rock with no visible depth at all. I am honestly a little stumped on this ID and, without the field notebook, I simply can't remember what my professor said about them; I remember that I did not know the word he used at the time, but I was new enough to invertebrates that that could mean almost anything. My best guess is that they are gorgonians, but I am probably several phyla removed from the right ID. I am happy to take any additional photos if they will help. Thank you for your thoughts!

This is a piece that I picked up on a geology field trip years ago in eastern New Mexico. I apologize that I have unfortunately lost the field notebook that contains more specific location information, but I am hoping to get in contact with the teacher that took us there for other reasons and might be able to provide additional information if I can ask him. The section was Cambrian to Ordovician in age: it started with abundant stromatolites, then progressed into thrombolites and finally siliciclastics disappeared during the Ordovician sea level high-stand. This piece was found from amidst microbialites, so should be Cambrian in age. My professor identified it as a "sponge" at the time. I am wondering if it is perhaps an archaeocyathid based on the age and the central hole. Either way, if anyone that is more familiar with that area has thoughts on any more specific identification, I would be thrilled! Please ask if you need photos from a different angle or anything like that. Thank you very much!

Hello for all. It has been a while to leave a post here! I am currently in Burlington, VT as a UVM student. Before the end of the summer recess (August 18), I traveled to northern Vermont consulting some articles about Cambrian and Ordovician formation located in Highgate Falls and South Hero. In this post, I will just talk about one trip to Highgate. I left my dorm around 11 a.m., and I get the Higate Falls near 1 p.m. After straying about 3 hours, I finally realized that the outcrops described as fossiliferous in the article are located in the private land. Thanks to my student ID card, the landowners welcomed me I could not hunt fossil around the Ordovician formation (Highgate Formation; Upper Ordovician) because the cliff was really steep and seemed very dangerous. It is on the left side of the picture (Red line). So, I just focused on the right side (Yellow line) that is Gorge Formation (Upper Cambrian, Upper Sunwaptan Stage, 492-491 MYA). Below is a photo of the Gorge Formation I found some trilobites and brachiopods (not on this post), but I have no clue about their scientific name even though I checked my article... I would appreciate if you correct the wrong scientific name 1. Lotagnotus americanus Billings, 1860 2. Geragnostus ( Micragnostus ) bisectus (Matthew, 1892) (Shaw, A. B. (1951). The Paleontology of Northwestern Vermont. 1. New Late Cambrian Trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, Vol.25, No.1, pp.97-114.) 3. Librigena.

It is in the Changxing island of Dalian, a port city located in NE China, somewhere near Korea. The calcite/dolomites seems to have some scattered trilobites pieces. But the dolomite and clay layers stack up alternatively, which is not supposed to be marine face? BTW, the rocks are supposed to be of Early to Mid Cambrian period. I can not tell the speices of the trilobites. I do not know if they are heads or tails.

https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/12700 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31499-y

Well I was going to add on to my post from 2 days ago, but I just decided to do a new one since it is a second visit to Murray County, Georgia to collect Cambrian trilobites from the Conasauga Formation. Today was another great days in the 80’s and it is nice to collect underneath the bridge, since you are in shade the whole time. Since my brother had to work today, I collected by myself, as I usually do. If members have not seen the area from previous posts, I will add some below that I took today. Here is a view from on top, prior heading to the collecting site. The next view is looking up at steep climb to get back to the top. Here is the collecting area. And a view of the Conasauga River, it is very low. Here are a few of my finds from today, I like to take more pics, but since I do it in the field, and cutting pieces down to size, it takes away time from collecting. Aphelaspis brachyphasis Here is a a great piece with 7 trilobites. Some of the really little ones ones are preserved very nicely. I also collected matrix to take home so I can work on it in the winter.

Made it down to the Conasauga Shale as the last of 10 sites on a 4-state, 6-time-period collecting expedition in mid-august. I'll post reports on the other sites (as well as other trips earlier in the summer) later. I elected not to split shale on-site and just collected shale for splitting in a controlled environment. I'm only interested in trilobites that still have the exoskeleton (rather than just impressions). I gently tap the shale until I see a fine crack in a bedding plane and then carefully pry it apart with an Xacto knife. The exoskeletons usually have a hollow space above and below them and are terribly fragile. One must hope that all the exoskeleton ends up on one side of the split. Any still unexposed require tedious removal of matrix under a scope with a fine needle while trying to avoid poking through the exoskeleton into the hollow space underneath. I wick consolidant under the exoskeleton to prevent it from flaking off. Even blowing on it can knock it off. Here are the keepers.

The subject of this article is probably old news....but they spent a significant amount of space highlighting the importance of amateur collectors and thanking them for their contributions. Thought it might be nice to read about that http://www.geologypage.com/2018/09/half-billion-year-old-fossils-offer-new-clues-to-how-life-exploded-on-the-sea-floor.html

Found fossils in Little Belt Moutain, in Montana. Sandstone, from Park Formation, listed as Franconian, Cambrian. Each fossil fragment is about 5mm. Other fossils present. Need to find the Identification for the dark brown shell-like fossils. I believe they may be parts of trilobite cephalons.

Planning a fossil hunting trip to the Gold Point, Nevada. Anyone have specific fossil locations? Dan

There is a Vetulicola (partial) somewhere on this piece, I have been looking at it for awhile but I can't really spot where it is on here, anyone more familiar with Chengjiang fossils able to spot it or id for sure as vetulicola?

When I hunt trilobites in the Eau Claire Formation, Cambrian, I encounter this type of rock frequently. Could it be trilobite trace fossils or just dried mud??? The squiggles are raised over the background rock. Mike

This is a retcon of an earlier post I had. Cambrian fossils aren't something one thinks of when they think of Maryland fossil hunting, and perhaps for good reason. The Cambrian rocks of the state are poorly exposed, those few areas where they do outcrop usually being gobbled up in urban sprawl. Compared to sites elsewhere like in Utah or York, Pennsylvania, the Maryland Cambrian is also rather barren. You could probably count on both hands the number of macrospecies in the entire early and middle Cambrian section of the state. But this rarity only makes collecting in it that much more interesting! Luckily for me I'm pretty close by most of these formations, so I have a decent knowledge of the area and outcrops, but even then it took a decent amount of time researching and scouting to find a site. The most recent formation I visited was the Araby Formation. Up until the mid 20th century the Araby was considered part of the Antietam Sandstone further west in the Blue Ridge, but after some more studies done on the formation it was found that it's lithological character was distinct enough to warrant it being a separate unit. Whereas the Antietam is a white quartz sandstone (much like the Oriskany I posted about yesterday) deposited in a beach-like environment, the Araby was deposited in deeper water (compared to the Antietam) and is more a mixture of siltstones, shales, phyllites, and slates. Together with the Antietam the Araby has some of the oldest fossils in the state dating back to the early Cambrian period some 540 million years ago. This makes it the oldest formation in the Frederick Valley. For those that don't know the Frederick Valley is a predominantly limestone syncline in west central Maryland (I consider it western Maryland, but most people probably wouldn't). At it's core is the early Ordovician Grove Limestone (which has practically no fossils), and on it's flanks are the late Cambrian Frederick Limestone (fossiliferous in parts, but those parts are very rare) and finally the Araby Formation. The Araby takes up positions along the far flanks of the valley, and it's eastern boundary with the metamorphic rocks of the Westminster Terrane marks the Martic Fault (no Washingtonians you don't need to worry about a San Andrea, from what I've read the Martic has been inactive for a long, long time). Due to it's sediment type and that of the surrounding rocks, the Araby is also a minor ridge forming unit, holding up the series of hills that flank Frederick Valley's eastern edge. These hills are nicely visible from the grounds of Monocacy National Battlefield, which is also of interest for marking the site of the northernmost Confederate victory (July 9, 1864 for those who're curious) in the Civil War. This ridge forming aspect means that, although very thin and covering a very small area, the Araby Formation has multiple exposures throughout the Frederick Valley. Some of the better ones are visible along I-70 just east of it's crossing over Monocacy River (an MGS team found some trilobites there) and MD-355 as you drive through the woods before hitting Araby Church Road (I believe the namesake for the formation is actually the Araby Church). In terms of fossils the Araby is almost exclusively dominated by the trace fossil Skolithos linearis, an annelid worm burrow. Other fossils found in it, however, include echinoderms and Olenellus sp. trilobites. As another aside the Cash Smith Shale, once held as an independent formation, also has trilobites and I believe inarticulate brachiopods reported from it, however it is no longer considered an independent formation but rather a member of the Araby Formation. Almost all of my fossils were the worm burrows, still cool but for everyone's sake I won't constantly repeat what they are this time around. Image 1: The largest burrow I've found. I originally thought it was a genal spine from a trilobite due to it's size. Image 2: Cross section of a burrow, outlined by the iron oxide stain. Image 3: Another burrow, this one roughly outlined by the iron oxide. Image 4: The large tubular structure covered in iron oxide (you might be noticing a pattern here with the oxides and burrows. I can't say definitively if they're connected in some way, but oftentimes you'll find the one with the other).

Recently picked up some un-prepared trilobites while in morocco there is some Cambrian trilobites pictured here which have not had the full prep done yet so I understand some might not be fully identifiable. Thanks Matt

Naked chancelloriid from the lower Cambrian of China Strange sponge-like fossil creature from Chengjiang deposits of Yunnan Province, China University of Leicester, June 19, 2018 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180619230853.htm https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2018/june/strange-nude-fossil-creature-from-half-a-billion-years-ago The paper is; Cong, P.Y., Harvey, T.H., Williams, M., Siveter, D.J., Siveter, D.J., Gabbott, S.E., Li, Y.J., Wei, F. and Hou, X.G., 2018. Naked chancelloriids from the lower Cambrian of China show evidence for sponge-type growth. Proc. R. Soc. B, 285(1881), p.20180296. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0296 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/285/1881/20180296 I could not an online PDF File of the above paper. I could only find; Bengtson, S. and Collins, D., 2015. Chancelloriids of the Cambrian Burgess Shale. Palaeontologia Electronica, 18(1), pp. 1-67. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1031:chancelloriids&catid=146:2015&Itemid=567 and Hughes, N.C., Peng, S., Bhargava, O.N., Ahluwalia, A.D., Walia, S., Myrow, P.M. and Parcha, S.K., 2005. Cambrian biostratigraphy of the Tal Group, Lesser Himalaya, India, and early Tsanglangpuan (late early Cambrian) trilobites from the Nigali Dhar syncline. Geological Magazine, 142(1), pp. 57-80. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1aba/719f7a72ffbd6006df6f596c749ac20b975b.pdf http://earthsciences.ucr.edu/docs/Hughesetal2005Tal.pdf http://trilobyte.ucr.edu/hughespubs.html Yours, Paul H.