Search the Community

Two quick items this morning from the Ozan Formation (Cretaceous, Campanian) of north Texas (Fannin County). These items are small, picked from the matrix. The first one is 5mm long and I'm wondering if it could be a partial leg of an ophiuroid. It looks similar to one I saw in a publication from the North Carolina Fossil Club. It has numerous partially overlapping segments but unfortunately the bottom? is not preserved. I'm wondering if @EPIKLULSXDDDDD can look at his recent brittle star find and see if there is any similarity, I can't tell from the pictures posted here; http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/129481-some-say-lightning-doesnt-strike-the-same-place-twice/&tab=comments#comment-1400875 I am plenty open to other ideas on what it might be as well and I realize it may be too fragmentary to say anything for sure. Here are a couple of pictures: The second one I believe is a "worm tube", some sort of serpulid, but I'm not sure as it is more "spikey" than I have seen before and looks a bit more segmented. It also starts out in a bit or a curl like I have seen with certain gastropods and even an ammonite, but that may just be coincidental. The black bar at the bottom is 1cm long so this item is about 4-5 mm ish. Thanks for looking and I appreciate any opinions. Mike

I have a set of very small brachiopods from the Ozan Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Campanian) of north Texas (Fannin County, near the North Sulphur River). Some pictures have scale bars, others do not, but the largest of these shells is ~4mm (they are roughly equidimensional). They are not a rare shell in the matrix, but are small and are not abundant. I collected 57 pieces of them out of 3-4000 fossil items picked from the 12 mesh matrix fraction. I have not found a direct match in my literature and website searches so far, so I am looking for some help from our brachiopods gurus @Tidgy's Dad, @Misha, @Jeffrey P, @Thomas.Dodson @Fossildude19 and anyone else who might care to voice an opinion. Also our North (or even Central) Texas folks surely might have some valuable insight: @BobWill, @JamieLynn @ThePhysicist @JohnJ @erose, @grandpa, @Uncle Siphuncle just to call out a few. Maybe the Dallas Paleo Society has looked into these. I'll start with just a bit of background info first. These brachiopods are not new, but may be as yet officially unidentified, but that is what I hope to find out. Cretaceous brachiopods in Texas are not that common, other than Kingena (Waconella) wacoensis and these are clearly not that species. The 2019 version of the Fossils Collectors Guidebook to the North Sulphur River shows some similar looking specimens on Page 45 (Figure 8) but lists them as "small indeterminate rhynchonellid brachiopods". G.A. Cooper in a 1973 publication named a new terebratulid genus, Cricosia, which was found rarely in the Upper Cretaceous of Texas which bears some similarities and D.V. Ager, et al published a Journal of Paleontology paper in 1963 which discussed two genera (Cyclothyris and Lamellorhynchia) of rhynchonellid brachiopods which bear a passing resemblance (but have some major differences) and I have seen on other websites attributed to specimens from north Texas. As far as I know, that is about the extent of published brachiopods from the Cretaceous of Texas. If I have missed any others, perhaps that are too dissimilar from mine to have come across my radar, but if you are aware of others, please let me know. So my first question as I started looking for an ID, which Order of brachiopods do mine belong to? I thought this would be easy, I was wrong. While brachiopod diversity was very high in the Paleozoic, by the late Mesozoic (specifically Cretaceous) there were only two Orders of articulate brachiopods left, the Terebratulida and Rhynchonellida. That should be easy, only two to choose from. Unfortunately, the brachiopods in question don't fit nicely into the common forms of either one. I made a little table of the common features of the two orders based on information from the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology (Part H) and highlighted which features are present (check mark) or absent (no go sign) in the specimens in question. Probably the most important feature that distinguishes the two orders, is the support of the lophophore, (the internal feeding mechanism) and I don't have preserved features which make this obvious. On the outside, terebratulids are normally smooth with a curved hinge, mine are ribbed with a straight hinge. Rhynchonellids are normally very biconvex, have a strong fold and sulcus and the line where the two valves join is zig-zig due to very coarse ribbing, mine have none of these features. I can not see any punctae in the shells, but I always struggle with this and maybe the preservation in just not good enough to preserve this microscopic feature. One last thing I read is that rhynchonellids have strong hinge teeth and tend to be most commonly preserved as complete shells (both valves together). I have a couple of articulated specimens, but most of mine are isolated brachial or (less common) pedicle valves. So I am leaning to Terebratulid, but not positive. OK, enough yakking, lets look at them: The brachial valve interiors I think hold some of the most important features for determining an ID. In these you can see that the pedicle opening is not closed, but is an open triangular shape. On this one you can see that the ribbing is somewhat beaded and that the umbo area is somewhat smooth. You don't see that preserved on all of them. I know this is a lousy picture, but you can see the biconvex profile with the pedicle valve on the left and the pedicle opening at the top. In all cases the pedicle valve is quite inflated and the brachial valve is either flat or slightly convex. Here are two different shells in anterior view showing the straight line of junction between the two valves (sorry from the glob of sticky stuff on the top specimen). One is very biconvex, the other is planoconvex. Thee is no hint of a fold or sulcus. Here is a detailed view of the brachial valve interior with some lighting from the side to try and show the crura (right one is in red circle) which are paired processes that stick up and I believe were the base of the calcareous loop that supported the lophophore. So I am asking for any help in pinning a name to these. I'd be happy with a genus but will even settle for a family. Based on searching through the Treatise and reading several publications, I believe they are Terebratulids in the Family Cancellothyrididae. I believe the very distinct processes I see sticking up (red circles), the shape of the cardinal process and the lack of a median septum rule out any rhynchonellids, but I could be mistaken. The genus Cricosia is the closest I can find and it has been reported from Texas, but these are definitely different from Cricosia filosa (Conrad), which I believe is the only species described. Below are snippets from The 1973 Cooper paper of Cricosia and the one on the right is from the Treatise. You can see the shape is similar (straight hinge is very uncommon in terebratulids), the cardinal process is very similar, but the ornamentation is very different (the whole family is one of the few in terebratulida that has ribbing). Of course, my specimens are missing the whole loop feature that is so important, I only have the base of the feature (and is the Treatise diagram, those are reconstructed). Thanks for looking and I appreciate any insights. I can provide more info or other pictures if needed. Mike

The two most prominent hypothesizes on the direct evolutionary origin of perhaps the most famous Theropod Dinosaur from the fossil record, Tyrannosaurus Rex (Tyrannosauridae, Late Cretaceous (68-66 Million Years ago)) are what I call the Laramidia and Asian Origins. The Laramidia origin (named after the region of the Western North America which was a separate Continent during most of the Late Cretaceous and home to a vast amount of dinosaurs including Tyrannosaurus rex) hypothesizes that Tyrannosaurus rex is the direct descendent of and evolved from slightly older North American Tyrannosaurids like Daspletosaurus (Tyrannosauridae, Late Cretaceous (79.5-74 Million Years ago)). Warshaw, Elías & Fowler, Denver. (2022). A transitional species of Daspletosaurus Russell, 1970 from the Judith River Formation of eastern Montana. PeerJ. 10. e14461. 10.7717/peerj.14461. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365746599_A_transitional_species_of_Daspletosaurus_Russell_1970_from_the_Judith_River_Formation_of_eastern_Montana The Asian origin hypothesizes that Tyrannosaurus’s direct ancestor was a Tyrannosaurid from Asia. This supported by how closely related the Asian Tyrannosaurid Tarbosaurus (Tyrannosauridae, Late Cretaceous (70 Million Years ago)). This hypothesis further elaborates that a that the Asian Tyrannosaurids arrived in Western North America via a land bridge between what is now Eastern Russia and Alaska around 73-72 Million Years ago. On arrival, theses Asian Tyrannosaurids outcompeted and caused the extinction of most of the Native Tyrannosaur species of Laramidia (including Albertosaurus (Tyrannosaurid, Late Cretaceous (71-68 Million Years ago)), creating conditions allowing for the emergence of the genus Tyrannosaurus. Brusatte, Stephen & Carr, Thomas. (2016). The phylogeny and evolutionary history of tyrannosauroid dinosaurs. Scientific Reports. 6. 20252. 10.1038/srep20252. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20252 Takasaki R, Fiorillo AR, Tykoski RS, Kobayashi Y (2020) Re-examination of the cranial osteology of the Arctic Alaskan hadrosaurine with implications for its taxonomic status. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0232410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232410 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410 Both hypotheses have points that are supported by the fossil record, but still don’t fill all the gaps in answering the question of the direct origin of the genus Tyrannosaurus. There is however another hypothesis I have pondered over for at least the past few months which could fill in some (if not all) the gaps to this question. It is the Hybrid Speciation Origin hypothesis. The Hybrid Speciation Origin hypothesis basically states that after a land bridge formed between Eurasia and Laramidia during the Late Campanian stage of the Cretaceous (73-72 Million Years ago) and the Asian Tyrannosaurids arrived in Laramidia, certain individuals of a Asian Tyrannosaurid genus breed with a species of a genus of Native Laramidia Tyrannosaurid (likely a direct descendent of Daspletosaurus). Enough of these inter-genus breeding events occurred that a new Tyrannosaurid genus distinct from its parent species (and genuses) emerged around 68 Million Years ago, Tyrannosaurus. I will admit this would be extremely difficult to prove, but I do believe it could be a valid hypothesis. It corroborates the many similarities in skeletal structure Tyrannosaurus shares (and how closely related it is phylogenetically) with the Asian Tyrannosaurid Tarbosaurus and the skeletal structure similarities and general body shape it shares with Daspletosaurus. Image Credit: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20252 Brusatte, Stephen & Carr, Thomas. (2016). The phylogeny and evolutionary history of tyrannosauroid dinosaurs. Scientific Reports. 6. 20252. 10.1038/srep20252. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20252 Warshaw, Elías & Fowler, Denver. (2022). A transitional species of Daspletosaurus Russell, 1970 from the Judith River Formation of eastern Montana. PeerJ. 10. e14461. 10.7717/peerj.14461. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365746599_A_transitional_species_of_Daspletosaurus_Russell_1970_from_the_Judith_River_Formation_of_eastern_Montana Stein, Walter W.; Triebold, Michael (2013). "Preliminary Analysis of a Sub-adult Tyrannosaurid Skeleton from the Judith River Formation of Petroleum County, Montana". In J. Michael Parrish; Ralph E. Molnar; Philip J. Currie; Eva B. Koppelhus (eds.). Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 55–77. Currie, P.J. (2003). Cranial anatomy of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48 (2): pp. 191–226. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app48/app48-191.pdf I am interested in how the tyrannosaurid species Nanuqusaurus (Tyrannosaurid, Late Cretaceous (70-68 (likely also to 66) Million years ago), the Daspletosaur Tyrannosaurid specimen RMDRC 2002.MT-001 “Sir William”, and the Tyrannosaurid specimen CM 9401 could factor into the validity of the hybrid speciation hypothesis. I hold no illusions in thinking this hypothesis is not going to be controversial. But I do think it could be semi plausible. What do you guys think?

Hello all, Most of the belemnite hooks are found in Jurassic sediments (Germany, UK). Does anyone know if Cretaceous belemnite hooks are found? (from the Belemnitellidae family?). I know that in one book about the Cretaceous fossils in Rügen (Germany), belemnite hooks/hooklets are present (forgot the title of the book...). Kind regards, Ruben

Can some help me to ID From Campanian age in Coahuila state of México. Thanks¡

From Upper Campanian strata in the SE Pyrenees (Catalonia-Spain), I’ve found this piece that defies my knowledge of the zone’s invertebrates, as neither its size nor its shape fits anything I know. It seems an ostreid to me because the laminar structure and smooth surface of the shell, but the ostreids in the zone I’ve learned to ID, such as Amphidonte pyrenaicum, Amphidonte pliciferum, Pycnodonte vesicularis, Hyotissa semiplana, Agerostrea ungulata and Rastellum sp. are very different. Some details: The shell form beekite rings, as the ostreids in the zone are prone to do: Two types of bryozoan attached to the shell:

Took a trip today to one of my new Ozan spots that is rapidly becoming a favorite, despite the headache it is to reach. Although the finds are few and far between, I've always come out with something I haven't seen before. It's definitely been testing my ID skills. I didn't come out with too many things, but I've got a couple I would like to get some informed opinions on. First up is a regular urchin. I've found a few fragments of regular echinoids washed out within a small stretch of creek. Though this is the third I've seen, its the first of this appearance and first to safely make it undamaged (it's a bumpy ride to get in and out). I'm pretty bad with echinoid IDs, but from comparison with the ones I'm familiar with, I think it's a kind of salenia. It also looks like it could be a goniophorus. I don't know the terminology, but the lines of mini tubercles in between the primary tubercles look closer to salenia. They seem to form paired lines. This guy is about 7.5 mm across. If it is salenia, I'm guessing it isn't the typical texana, mexicana, etc. that are found in older cretaceous fms of TX, so I wonder what species it could be if not a new one ! The second specimen I want to share looks like a fish jaw to me. Initially, I was very confused on what it could be. I thought it was tooth shaped, but had enamel unlike any I was familiar with. After some prepping, I think I've found a single tooth socket. Unfortunately, most of the "jaw" had been eroded away. Do you guys think it's a fish jaw? If so, any guesses on genus/species? Thanks for reading and feel free to ask for additional pics!

Hello all, This weekend another fossil hunt in Cretaceous sediments in the Netherlands (late late Campanian, early Maastrichtian, around 72-66 mya (whole late Maastrichtian) and/or (more specific) 70.8-67/70.8-68 mya). The wetter was good, a bit warm and even sometimes humid. Found some typical Cretaceous fossils. Mainly Belemnites from the species Belemnitella sp. and Belemnella (pachybelemnella) sp. Perhaps some B. (pachybelemnella) obtusa (Schulz, 1979) and one fragment of a sea urchin (Echinocorys sp.). Compared to American sites (for example New Jersey), a relatively low diversity of macrofossils. But nonetheless, some nice fossils.

Year ago two friends of mine found some nice teeth and vertebraes from Squalicorax. As they were found close together - what is very unusual - we decided to write a small paper about it. We came to the solution that the verts and teeth belong to the skull-region of the shark. Finds like this are very rare, not many published till now. Journal was "APH" (www.ap-h.de), founded in Hannover. A nice Paper (now existing 50 Years!), 4 issues a year full of papers about northern germany fossils and more 49-61 (Raquet).pdf

A few months ago I had the opportunity to collect a bunch of matrix from the Cretaceous aged (Campanian) Ozan Formation of North Texas in the "red beds". The larger fraction is rich in sharks teeth and other small macro fauna. After breaking down the matrix, I have put it through a number of sieves to facilitate picking and sorting. I have available lots of very fine matrix that made it through my 60 mesh sieve (so it is all smaller than 250 microns or ~0.25 mm). In this fraction I see lots of forams, some ostracods, and some other very small fossils. I am not really equipped to pick and analyze this small of material (and I have gallons of it) so: If anyone would like some, just let me know (PM me) and I will be happy to send you some. Again, this is very fine, I have not seen any sharks teeth in this size range but there are other identifiable fossils. In the US, I will be happy to send you a bag of it; if you are overseas, I may want some help with shipping costs or maybe we can do a swap of other matrix. If you have any questions, just let me know. Here is a quick picture of forams and some items I have picked out of the matrix offered (sorry for the lack of scale, but everything fit through 60 mesh).

More and more dinosaur material is becoming available from the Two Medicine Formation. I see lots of misidentified material and some with questionable localities that might fit other deposits. I would like to summarize what I believe is currently known and published. If you see any omissions or errors, please let me know Not a lot of good maps out there to show the formation but here are two. The TMF is about 650 meters thick and is the western equivalent of the Judith River Formation. Most of the sediments were deposited in streams, rivers and lakes. It overlies the Virgelle Sandstone and underlies the Bearpaw Formation. More important, for collectors buying material to be aware of the counties that have the majority of exposures they include but not exclusive to: Glacier County, Teton County, Lewis and Clark County and Pondera County Faunal List: 9/13/22 (excludes Avialae) Lots of changes in recent years so older hard copy books are most likely out of date e.g. Dinosauria 2nd edition. This list was developed based on looking at a number of different reference sources, not Wikipedia, and like most lists some paleontologists or collectors may have different opinions, which is fine Tyrannosauridae: - Daspletosaurus horneri (Carr et al. 2017) - Gorgosaurus sp. Dromaeosauridae: - Dromaeosaurus indet. - Saurornitholestes indet. - Bambiraptor feinbergorum (Burnham et al. 2000) Theropods: - cf Troodon formosus - cf Richardoestesia sp. - cf Paronychodon? Ankylosayria: - Scolosaurus cutleri (Nopcsa 1928) - Edmontonia rugosidens (Sternberg 1928) Ceratopsidae: - Rubeosaurus (Styracosaurus) ovatus (Gilmore 1930) - Einiosaurus procurviconis (Sampson 1994) - Achelosaurus hornei (Sampson 1994) - Prenoceratops pieganesis (Chinnery 2004) Hadrosauroidae: - Maiasaura peeblesorum (Horner & Makela 1979) - Prosaurolphus maximus (Brown 1916) - Gryposaurus latidens (Horner 1992) - Hypracrosaurus stebingeri (Horner & Currie 1994) Thescelosauridae: - Orodromeus makelai (Horner & Weishample 1988) Pachycephalosauridae: - Stegoceras sp. Caenaganathidae: - Chirostenotes pergracilis (Gilmore 1924) References: - Dinosaurs under the Big Sky, Jack Horner, 2001 Mountain Press Publishing Co. - Rogers RR. Sequence analysis of the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine and Judith River formations, Montana: nonmarine response to the Claggett and Bearpaw marine cycles. J Sediment Res. 1998; 68: 615–631. - McDonald AT (2011) A Subadult Specimen of Rubeosaurus ovatus (Dinosauria: Ceratopsidae), with Observations on Other Ceratopsids from the Two Medicine Formation. PLoS ONE 6(8): e22710. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022710 - Caleb Marshall Brown , David C. Evans , Michael J. Ryan & Anthony P. Russell (2013) New data on the diversity and abundance of small-bodied ornithopods (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) from the Belly River Group (Campanian) of Alberta, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 33:3, 495-520, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2013.746229 - Michael J. Ryan , Robert Holmes & A. P. Russell (2007) A revisionof the late campanian centrosaurine ceratopsid genus Styracosaurus from the WesternInterior of North America, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27:4, 944-962, DOI:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[944:AROTLC]2.0.CO;2

Edited 6/20/23: added Furcatoceratops elucidans More and more dinosaur material is becoming available from the Judith River Formation. I see lots of misidentified material and some with questionable localities that might fit other deposits. I would like to summarize what I believe is currently known and published. If you see any omissions or errors, please let me know. Not a lot of good maps out there to show the formation but here are two. In general, the exposures are in North Central Montana. Horner describes the formation on the western end is near the east end of the Sweetgrass Hills (very thick about 152 meters) and thins to less than 3 meters to its eastern edge Saco, MT. Bound by marine deposits Claggett Formation beneath and Bearpaw Fm above. More important, for collectors buying material is to be aware of the counties that have the majority of exposures they include but not exclusive to: Hill County, Blaine County, Phillips County, Western Part of Valley County, Fergus County, Wheatland County, Northern Valley County, Western Part of Garfied County, Big Horn County .You can see by the maps why a good provenance is vital to an ID. Stratigraphic range: Late Cretaceous, Middle to Upper Campanian 79.7 - 75.2 Ma Red _ Judith River Fm in Montana Faunal List: Updated 10/22/2022 (excludes Avialae) Lots of changes in recent years so older hard copy books are most likely out of date e.g. Dinosauria 2nd edition. This list was developed based on looking at a number of different reference sources, not Wikipedia, and like most lists some paleontologists or collectors may have different opinions, which is fine. The Judith deposit is very similar to those of the Belly River Group however you would not guess it by the variety of different dinosaurs that are described in this list particularly with the herbivores. Denver Fowler has even questioned if there is any justification to calling it Judith anymore since its continuous with Canadian Units. Will leave that for a different discussion since it probably will never happen. Edited 11/25/22 Tyrannosauridae: - Tyrannosaur indet. (Tom Holtz 2021) - Daspletosaurus wilsoni (Warshaw & Fowler 2022) - Aublysodon mirandus - nomen dubium Dromaeosauridae: - Dromaeosaurus albertensis (Matthew & Brown 1922) - Saurornitholestes sp. - Dromaeosaurid? - Zapsalis abradens (Although included on most faunal list this tooth morphology was shown to be a premaxillary tooth of a Saurornitholestes (DPF) (Currie & Evans 2019) it is therefore not valid Theropods: - Troodon formosus (Leidy 1856) - cf Richardoestesia gilmorei - cf Paronychodon lacustris - Ornithomimid indet. (spp.) - Ornithomimid large bodied (PO & Longrich 2007 DPFm) - Cenagnathid indet (Personal Observation) - Theropod indet Pachycephalosauridae: - Pachycephalosaurid indet. - Colepiocephale lambei (Sternberg 1945) Ankylosauria: - Nodosaurid indet (cf Edmontonia) - Zuul crurivastator (Arbour & Evans 2017) - Ankylosaurine ? Ceratopsidae: - Avaceratops lammersi (Dodson 1986) - Judiceratops tigris (Leidy 1856) - Medusaceratops lokii (Ryan et al. 2010) - Mercuriceratops gemini (Ryan et al. 2014) - Spiclypeus shipporum (Mallon et al. 2016) - Furcatoceratops elucidans (Hiroki Ishikawa et al. 2023) - Ceratopsid indet. - Leptoceratopsid indet? Hadrosauroidae: - Probrachylophosaurus bergei (Fowler & Horner 2015) - Brachylophosaurus canadensis (Sternberg 1953) - Hadrosaurinae indet. - Lambeosaurinae indet. - Corythosaurus sp. (Takasaki et al. 2022) Other Ornithischians: - Orodrominae indet? PO- Personal Observation in my collection Reference - Takasaki, Ryuji; Chiba, Kentaro; Fiorillo, Anthony R.; Brink, Kirstin S.; Evans, David C.; Fanti, Federico; Saneyoshi, Mototaka; Maltese, Anthony; Ishigaki, Shinobu (2022-10-23). "Description of the first definitive Corythosaurus (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae) specimens from the Judith River Formation in Montana, USA and their paleobiogeographical significance". The Anatomical Record. doi:10.1002/ar.25097. ISSN 1932-8486 -Tom Holtz Theropod guild structure and the tyrannosaurid niche assimilation hypothesis: implications for predatory dinosaur macroecology and ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica (2021) Canadian Journal of Earth Science -Mallon JC, Ott CJ, Larson PL, Iuliano EM, Evans DC (2016) Spiclypeus shipporum gen. et sp. nov., a Boldly Audacious New Chasmosaurine Ceratopsid (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous: Campanian) of Montana, USA. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0154218. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154218 -Sahni A. The vertebrate fauna of the Judith River Formation, Montana. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1972; 147: 321–412. -Schott RK, Evans DC, Williamson TE, Carr TD, Goodwin MB. The anatomy and systematics of Colepiocephale lambei (Dinosauria: Pachycephalosauridae). J Vert Paleontol. 2009; 29: 771–786 -Longrich NR. Judiceratops tigris, a new horned dinosaur from the middle Campanian Judith River Formation of Montana. Bull Peabody Mus Nat Hist -Ryan MJ, Russell AP, Hartman SC. A new chasmosaurine ceratopsid from the Judith River Formation, Montana. In: Ryan MJ, Chinnery-Allgeier BJ, Eberth DA, editors. New perspectives on horned dinosaurs: the Royal Tyrrell Museum Ceratopsian Symposium. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 2010. pp. 181–188 -Freedman Fowler EA, Horner JR (2015) A New Brachylophosaurin Hadrosaur (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) with an Intermediate Nasal Crest from the Campanian Judith River Formation of Northcentral Montana. PLoS ONE 10(11): e0141304. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141304 -Rogers RR. Sequence analysis of the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine and Judith River formations, Montana: nonmarine response to the Claggett and Bearpaw marine cycles. J Sediment Res. 1998; 68: 615–631. -Fowler DW (2017) Revised geochronology, correlation, and dinosaur stratigraphic ranges of the Santonian-Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous) formations of the Western Interior of North America. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0188426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0188426 -Dinosaurs under the Big Sky, Jack Horner, 2001 Mountain Press Publishing Co.

Hello. Needing help to ID this strange fossil. Found in a quarry i Scania, southern Sweden. Lowermost lower campanian. Sandy biocalcarenites. Nearshore enviroment. The quarry have produced a number of rare, still unidentified fossils both marine and terrestrial. Findings of mosasaurs, marine crocodylomorphs, aquatic birds, flying reptiles, bony fishes, sharks and also neaceratopsian dinosaurs have been made in the quarry. I have sent pictures of this fossil to a local expert at Lunds University but it´s still unidentified. The brown bone seems to end in a hard white beak but on both sides there are also a sharp thin triangular dark brown "tooth" somewhat like the side cusps on a shark tooth. The left one is missing. Greatful for any help

I would like to share a typical "day off & out" during summer. During summer, I don´t do serious prospecting. Too hot, too green, too much distraction, like blueberries and mushrooms. So, last Sunday (07/03/2022), I mainly explored an area for "fruits" and visited two fossil sites discovered in October 2021. It was hiking-only, no driving between the various "stops". I found lots of blueberries (not fully ripe yet at 900 m asl), but it was much too dry for mushrooms. Nevertheless, I found a few places with a few Cantharellus cibarius: Some of them were even growing on extremely dry tractor paths. In the same general area, I have found two big Boletus edulis in May 31st by pure chance on a tractor path, which was very early in the year, hence my detailed prospecting for mushrooms in this area . Anyways, the goal were the sites 63 and 64, two about 10 years old forest road outcrops north of Reinprechtskogel (977 m asl) in the "Mixed Zone" of the lower Afling-formation in the Santonian-Campanian Gosau-group of Kainach of the Eastern Alps, squares are 2x2 km: Some landscape between the mushrooms and the fossils. That hill in the foreground a little bit right off the center in the first pic is Römaskogel hill (1006 m), the highest hill of the Kainach Gosau, with the rudist zones on its southwestern to northern slopes: Despite being quite densely* populated by dairy farmers, I find the area incredibly lovely and appealing**. Highest mountain in the very background to the right is about 2000 m high. Pics taken at about 900 m asl. *About 200 years ago, there was much less forest and much more (dairy) farm land in this area! **Ten years ago, I didn´t know the area yet and found it most boring geologically, judging from the literature... Site 63 exposes an about 1 m thick conglomerate bed with sparsely distributed Trochactaeon, rudists and some other molluscs, about 3 fossils per square meter are visible. The following pictured fossils were uncovered at 05/31/2022 and are somewhat clean now, scale is 1x1 m: Detail A, two weathered Trochactaeon: Detail B, a Vaccinites, a part of it still sticking in the outcrop: Here are some pics from October 2021, site 63 as found: I worked in slightly loosened parts of the exposure with a screwdriver and found some very "ugly" fossils. The following four pics all show the same specimen. The Trochactaeon is slightly flattened parallel to the bedding plane, the red object is about 11 cm high. Nearly in-situ, note the two already pictured snails at the upper right: Nearly in situ: Recovered and still in the field: Cleaned and at home: Other fossil found, upper valve of a Plagioptychus rudist: And a new one for the site, I don´t know what it is. I am fascinated by these ugly fossils in this coarse-grained conglomerate. Very probably a mix-up of various habitats, transported and deposited in a quite coarse-grained sediment. I would like to share also a polished section from this site again, specimens become a little bit better that way : I dug also a little bit at site 64, just a few tens of meters away from 63, and found again some rudists. Here, they are in a layer of sandstone, and no Trochactaeon have been observed yet. There are no outcrops between sites 63 and 64. The fossil beds could be in continuity, but it could also be a small fault in the small creek between the two sites. The fossil layer is at the red item: I took one specimen, its also not really a beauty . Freshly exposed and still in-situ: Cleaned at home: My recently bought pressure washer made cleaning of all these very dirty specimens easy. Not good, now I might take also big, very dirty specimens... Thanks for reading and looking! Franz Bernhard

Found this bone of what I think is a jaw from a fish. Åsen locality Scania Sweden. Upper lower Campanian. Nearshore/deltaic enviroment. Greensand. Bone is 6 cm long and has a row of small "sockets" for teeth? Fish teeth found on the location is Enchodus, Protosphyraena, Pachyrhizodus... other finds include Tylosaurus, Clidastes, sharks, rays, turtles and chimaerids. Happy for any help on ID.