Search the Community

This could be my fossil of the day… but I would like to get your expert opinion please.

Been having some heavy wind and storms. Found this on the shore of Lake Ontario in Henderson Harbor, NY. From what I have researched online and previous posts, thinking this is Spyroceras? Decent size too. Very happy with this and found it in a couple pieces so had to glue back together. Can anyone confirm or help to to ID? Rock is mostly Shale and Limestone. Area Ordovician in age from what I have been told.

Back in May 2017, I brought back some nice fossil plates from Ohio, I believe Ordovician in age. First photo is plate 1. Next photo (of plate 1) shows a close-up of parts of the trilobite Isotelus, next photo - a nautiloid (unknown species), next photo shows valves of the brachiopod Strophomera, along with many bryozoan fossils. Next photo is a close-up of crinoids on plate 3. (Not much on plate 2). And last photo is of quite a few crinoids on plate 4.

Hey, I posted my trip to California from Washington yesterday. I have now looked through my rocks and noticed that one of these rocks are different from the rest. I took a picture of the Buchia Bivalve in the first image, to show that it has a different shape and markings than the bivalves I found there. If anyone can give me a genus that would be great. Is this another shell or something more? Thanks guys

Found this while searching the creeks located around my farm. I find a lot of bryozoans, brachiopods, crinoid stems and that’s about it. Never have found a fossil like this around here before, though I know Northern Kentucky has found orthocone fossils before. Interested in what you all think!

Hey guys, I am fairly certain that this is a straight-shelled nautiloid cephlapod but this one is different from others I find. I find a lot of fragments from cephlapods in Cincinnati with only a few segments. This one seems like the whole shell, though it is 7.5 centimeters in length. Also one side has a bunch of holes which I am curious about. Any more info on this specimen would be much appreciated. Found in a creek so it has probably been weathered a lot. These next pictures are the top and bottom, (i dont know why they are flipped to the left)

Okay, I know these two pics will look pretty indeterminate, but would anyone be able to get me past cephalopod and gastropod and into an area where I can research and expand my knowledge. Both these were found in the Mississippian, Lake Valley Formation, Andrecito Member (early Osagean). Clear association to Zoophycos with which these were found.

Hey! I was looking for native artifacts in a neighbourhood creek when I came across what I thought was a somewhat large cephalopod fossil. The creek is in Louisville Kentucky, leading to Floyd’s Fork. From the USGS Mapview, it looks like it’s Ordovician of the Drake’s formation. Either Bardstown member or Saluda Dolomite member. Upon further examination, I saw that the ridges on the sides were angled very steeply. It was very covered by matrix, so I decided to get to work on it with a dremel tool. After getting a significant amount of material off the fossil, I found that the ridges along the side were not in fact bilaterally symmetrical, and rather that these ridges went down the length of it, spiraling like they would on a screw. It is hollow, partially filled in with some softer, red stone and crystallized on the inside. From what I can tell, it has a curve to it reminding me of cyrtoconic(?) cephalopods. I read somewhere that cephalopods are bilaterally symmetrical, so I decided to post this here since I now don’t have any better guesses on what it is. My only other thoughts are that shark coprolites can be spiral shaped, and that it seems too smooth and hollowed to be a horn coral. My heads buzzing about this. Mum said it could be a unicorn horn . Due to upload limits, I will be adding a couple more photos below. I could not find any other fragments of the fossil besides this one section.

UPDATE: August 20, 2013 - A new site for Wattieza - the world's oldest known tree Since posting this, the debate about "orthocone" versus "Devonian tree" has been settled. The Devonian tree experts have weighed in and confirm that these are Devonian tree shoots. They were growing in a swampy shallow marine environment similar to how modern mangroves grow. Since our original discovery - which represents an entirely and previously unknown site for Devonian Wattieza trees - my wife and I have collected more than a dozen separate fossils including some with surrounding substrate, from this site. I have cleaned most of the specimens and am taking closeup photos from all perspectives, now, to show such things as the central tube (called a stele) that runs through the core and the texture of the outer covering. In addition to Wattieza we have also discovered a separate Devonian plant species which we are attempting to evaluate and identify. Here is a photo from our SECOND site visit that shows the actual small Wattieza stump fossil that we collected, placed in front of a photo of the same fossil in the substrate as we found it. You can also see the adjacent "stick" which we currently believe is NOT part of the Wattieza stump - a separate closeup of the stick is included. We are currently looking at our several "stick" fossils and planning to cut one to look at the cross-section pattern, to try to determine the plant species. We feel that these finds have the potential to add new information about Devonian trees and plants, from this new site. It is also significant that we found these in a Devonian site where there are normally only marine fossils so we appear to have found a rare "island" of ideal conditions where young mangal Wattieza trees were growing in a paleosol where the conditions allowed fossilization. Geologically, these fossils are at the lower end of the "Tully limestone" formation. Our Devonian tree/plant finds confirm our thinking as "advanced amateur" paleontologists that as amateur fossil hunters we all can and should be using our time and knowledge to discover new sites and add to the fossil record. The small "army" of fossil hunters represented on The Fossil Forum have a unique opportunity to look in places where scientists may not have an opportunity - or inclination - to search. Once in awhile we discover something important, which seems to be the case here. OUR ORIGINAL POST Before I write our 4th of July trip report, I asked for some ID help with 3 tube shaped fossils we discovered at Tully, NY (Devonian, Hamilton Group) - the first opinion I received is that these are orthocone cephalopods. A contrary view is that these are Devonian trees! I modified the description slightly from the original post to reflect the current debate which has made this a "hot" topic. Have to admit, it's kind of cool that our first major fossil trip this year has sparked such an interesting discussion! Nan and I found these in situ sitting vertically in the substrate of a new construction site. I had found a few very large (2 inch diameter) cylinder shaped segments in the rubble that looked like cephalopod pieces and they were the largest we have seen to-date, so we were intrigued and started pulling away the substrate in the vertical walls exposed by the bulldozer. The first two fossils were found about a meter apart and the third was found about 300 meters away over a hill, but in the same level strata and depth. I'll do some minor cleaning, take better pix of the recovered fossils and segments, and add them soon - there appears to be a siphuncle structure running through the center, and other clues to the identity. Here is a quick view of how and where they were found - of course we realize it's very rare to find this type of fossil vertically embedded in the substrate. Nan found the first one, I found the next two and excavated all three - will provide more photos soon but hoped to get an ID first. The third sample had about 2/3 with the bottom portion missing. The first two appear to spread out slightly at the bottom. Several people suggested these could be trees and a few said other creatures but most people I talked to before posting this seem to agree they are orthocone cephalods. Aside from their size and shape (which is unusually large for the Tully shale so these are rare especially found in situ) - the primary convincing evidence is the siphon (siphuncle) protruding from the tip of the top of one of the specimens. This structure runs like a worm through the center - the other segments show holes in the center where the "wormlike body" ran through it. This argues against trees or other creatures but a few people claim that Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The most confusing aspect is the lack of hard shell which should be present if this were a cephalopod - so what does that suggest? Another type of creature? Did they moult their shells and is this the "soft shelled" phase? Or is this a tree? Here is the top segment from the best specimen which clearly shows the siphuncle protruding at the center. In addition to the segmented tube shaped structures (they are all about the same diameter and length) there appear to be tentacle shaped structures on the left side although I didn't recover those when I extracted the tubes. Of course if this is a tree, then it is possible that those structures could be shoots. The tentacles or shoots were not recovered and are only shown in the photo which unfortunately limits the analysis. Here is how the debate seems to be shaping up: Pro Orthocone Cephalopod - These 3 specimens were found in what appears to be a Devonian marine environment where all of the fossils found there have been marine fossils. They have a small center "worm like" structure running through the center that looks like a siphuncle (siphon). They are all segmented and all the same approximate length and diameter. One was partially collapsed and distorted (some segments bulging outward). No one has suggested a cephalopod species that this might represent. Pro Devonian Tree - The horizontal strata where they were found contained very few if any marine fossils so they could be small young trees growing in the water. There is no trace of any shell fragments which is unusual if this is a cephalopod and the segments don't resemble cephalopod shells. There is a thin outer "skin" which could be consistent with ancient horsetail type bark. In the cross section of the segments, there are no concentric circles - in early trees there was pith, not traditional wood with concentric growth circles and some people have indicated that the first Devonian trees did have a similar center structure. The center core that looks like a siphuncle would be a core structure called a stele. Piranha suggests that this could be Wattieza sp., a prehistoric cladoxylopsid tree from the Middle Devonian that was discovered in Gilboa, New York which would be consistent with the location which was the Hamilton Group near Tully, NY. This genus has been called the earliest known trees. One of our goals for this fossil trip was to find something larger and distinctive/unusual and apparently we've done that. Another goal we've had since last year was to find a Devonian plant of some sort and it would be cool if that's what this turns out to be. I'll be just as happy if these are orthocones. The debate is hot on the ID for these and with all the attention and help from everyone, we should zone in soon. I'll take some more closeup photos this week and post them here. These are some of the largest fossils Nan and I have found so far and certainly the largest we have found in situ - it's fascinating that we found these exactly where they died and were preserved, 385 mya. I have to admit I felt like RomanK, who finds a lot of stunning in situ fossils and I have to admit, I was consciously trying to think like Roman and inspired by his example while searching for these fossils, which involved a lot of "excavation." UPDATE: NEW PHOTOS/CLOSEUPS At the end of this blog (page 3 and 4) I posted some new closeup images.

This is from the Keefer Formation of the Clinton Group - Silurian. This site is a small iron strip pit in Duncansville, Blair County, Pennsylvania. When I first collected this I thought it might be a coprolite. Later a very experienced local fossil collector Id'ed it as a hematitic replacement of an orthoceras cephalapod. After looking at recent posts could it be something else or is it too lacking in detail to tell. I think its actually a cast not a replacement.

This morning I got an amazing birthday gift from my girlfriend A lifelike replica of a .... Manticoceras and an orthocone from Kamyk.pl Thx honney for the wonderful gift Manticoceras with his fossil counterpart: Orthocone replica with his fossil counterpart: a group picture: I will give those two replica's a paintjob in the future

My exploration/presentation of possible (I believe probable) siphuncle preservation in Michelinoceras that I found at smokes creek in Buffalo, New York. Enjoy! In the Hamilton group found in western New York (Wanakah shale, Windom Shale) you can find 2 straight shell nautilods known as Spyroceras and Michelinoceras. Both can be found throughout the Hamilton group but there is one particular bed at the base of the Wanakah shale on top of the Ledyard shale that has a high representation of Michelinoceras. The “Mt Vernon Bed” (seen in photo) is a very hard and concretionary calcareous shale with abundant cephalopods, Gastropods and some extra fauna mixed in. You can find this bed at smokes creek and rush creek behind Penn-Dixie in Buffalo, New York The scientist in me likes to collect type (exemplary) specimens...something represantive of the species I can refer to. Once I have a great specimen I’ll only collect other “type” (exemplary) quality specimens or rare “oddities”. I recently found some rare oddities stored away that I collected of Michelinoceras a few years ago. I decided to put some study time into them cause I never really looked at them hard. After some research and observation I think I know what I’m seeing and I’m going to share my thoughts but I would love to hear from some cephalopod experts! Pic 1 : stratigraphic setting Pic 2: type (exemplary) specimen typical of Mt Vernon bed. Pic 3: 2 large supplementary type (exemplary) specimens I have. The complete specimen actually shows very faint sipluncle evidence at the bottom of the picture. Pic 4: Bombshell specimen that allowed me to link and ID the specimen in picture 5 as a Michelinoceras. Pic 5: Partial Michelinoceras showing this same oddity seen in picture 3 and 4. I am going to follow up with more up close pictures and a few words/ evidence on what I think it is.

Hi guys! This is a continuation of a previous post focusing just on the sponges. These fossils are from the Capitan Formation, which is Permian Period, Guadalupian Epoch, Capitanian Stage. Because these fossils are in the park, no collecting was allowed, and I can't provide additional images. Any confirmations about the identification or suggestions about a more specific identification are welcome. This trilobite is the only fossil out of these images that was actually found in Carlsbad Caverns, right behind the elevator. Can I get more specific on an ID? Cross section of rugose coral? Sponge? Bryozoan. Acanthocladia? Bryozoan? Crinoid.

Hi, I am wondering what the white globular mineral growths are on this dolomitized Dawsonoceras mold. Calcite? Thanks for any help.

I found this ammonite on Saturday. It is the best Trachyscaphites springer I have ever found. I think it is a T. springer. I assume the other ones I have are males and maybe this one is a female. I don't know much about sexual dimorphism in this genus, but it does exist. When they say there is dimorphism is the female is bigger? It is so very different from any of the others I have. I know there is another species of Trachyscaphites in the NSR, but I don't know what it looks like. I really like this one though. It is free standing too! Bonus. It has some damage on the dorsal venter and the aperture. It also had some pyrite on the umbilicus area (I can’t really see an overt umbilicus since it is so involuted). My prep work is still very crude. There is so much I need to learn. I just keep at it and learn by trial and error though. I don’t have pneumatic tools. Here it is. See the white film on the right half? The white on the left half is nacre, but some of it has the film on it too. This is from the red zone of the Ozan formation, Cretaceous. I doubt it matters, but I am wondering if the film layer is pyrite in nature or gypsum or something else. I have specimens from the Britton formation of the Eagle Ford group, which have a gypsum film on them and this looks a bit little that. But that isn't my main question. It is just a curiosity. This is the other side. You can see some pyrite at the bottom left along the umbilicus grove. I have a number of these, but this is the first where I can actually see suture lines mostly at 11 to 12 o'clock down the midline and on the right. I am going to tag @Ptychodus04 and @RJB on this. I don't know if Ron is familiar with fossils of this matrial and matrix, but I imagine he is. I am pretty sure Kris is. Questions The film issue 1. Do you think I should attempt to remove the film? I think I should. See the tubercle by my thumb in pic 2? There was a tiny fleck of white showing so I chipped away at the red clay and revealed more nacre under it. So I believe there is still nacre under some of it on the left 2. What is the best way to go about removing it? I was thinking of using sandpaper, but I don't have much experience using sandpaper on fossils. I have a range of grit up to 3000 (or is it down to since the grit is smaller and finer?) The nose issue I am calling it the nose since it looks like a little nose. It seems to be the first part of the first visible whorl. 3. Any advice as to what to do with this part. I am not sure what to do with it. At times I prep haphazardly and then I think I have damaged it and I get paralysis of analysis and that is where I am on the nose. I have removed some matrix from the top, left and right. I think I might have gone down into the nose on the right side some. It is hard to tell where the matrix ends and fossil begins. These are other views of the nose. The lines on the nose are from me scraping away, thinking I was on top of ribs. I am not sure if there are ribs there yet. Like I said my prep skills are pretty crude still. The other side of it. I still have some matrix to removed on the side there. I think part of it is chipped away, but I am not totally sure how it is supposed to look. Maybe it got crushed. It just looks odd to me. I have several other of this species, but I think they may all be males or something. They are more open, the whorl does not cover the umbilicus and they are much flatter and smaller. The pyrite issue. I know I have asked these types of questions before about prep so sorry for the repeat. 4. What is the best way to address the pyrite to keep it from coming back? I have scraped most of it off already. I have heard people say to soak it in Iron Out and I have that. But I am concerned it may hurt the fossil. I guess I could experiment on other concretions I have that look like the same, but are rock and not fossil. 5. What should I do as far as long term preservation to slow the progress of pyrite disease? I think someone recommended Butvar. I looked into buying it, but I got sidetracked by trying to figure out which was best. Then couldn't find what was best and kind of forgot about buying again. 6. What is the best Butvar or product to use for sealing it? I looked at buying some on different sites. Paying so much for shipping irks me. I am spoiled with Amazon Prime and just don't think about shipping costs. I have a buddy who works at Eastman. I asked him if they had a store where individuals could purchase products like Butvar 76. He said no, but he would see if he could go ask for a sample The museum supply site. It has Butvar-80 for $34 for 1 kg and $15.53 for shipping. I don’t need 1 kg. Talas has Butvar-76 500 g for $17.50, but then is charging $14.64 for shipping! I have seen people reference McGean-15 or Vinac and they seemed to prefer it over Butvar. 7. Can anyone tell me the molecular weight of the Vinac or what grade of polyvinyl acetate Vinac is? I think my buddy could come up with that for me more easily since I think he manages production of a form of it. I found something called Vinapas. I have not looked at the shipping on this site. Here: http://www.conservationresources.com/Main/section_37/section37_08.htm PVA Resin Solid Vinapas This consolidant is a polyvinyl acetate solid suspended in granular form, with a molecular weight averaging 51,000 and a melting point of 50 C. It is used as a consolidantfor porous, dry, non-metal objects-particularly those found in digs. This is typically applied in concentrations of 20-25% I.M.S. with a soft brush. It may also be used as an isolating varnish and thermoplastic adhesive. Item # Description Price SY01 Vinapas, 1 kg. $22.00

Can anyone give me for information about this Cephalopod? Found in Pike County PA near the Delaware Water Gap National Rec. Area. Devonian shale. The wide end is 3/4", the visible part is 1 1/4" long.

Found in a creek East Fork Lake in Cincinnati. 14 centimeters in length. It looked to me like a nautiloid because of its shape but it doesn't have any of the distinctive markings like a nautiloid does. Someone suggested that it could be a cast. You can see the imprint of the rest of the fossil. What it looks like now after I broke the rest of the rock apart Opening of the cone shape, looks like a brachiopod? Nautiloid Cephalopod markings I'm talking about:

I am at the Santa Rosa Gem and Mineral show and one of the vendors had this on display, labeled as an oyster. I’m not sure that’s correct and the lady said it could also be a cephalopod. Looks to me like a loosely coiled ammonite, what does everyone think?

Although the most pieces of my collection are goniatites, I am more than happy to add other Devonian cephalopods to my collection from time to time. On my last field trip for devonian cephalopods I splitted a few nodules and some of them had a few uncommon fossils in them: Bactrites I rarely find decent fragments of them, but those few were looking promising. Bactrites, although they look like an orthocone are in fact straight Ammonoids and not a Nautiloid. the septas start to be slightly ondulated, but most important they have a ventral siphuncle, a typical trait of an Ammonoid. the first nodule had a fragment sticking out, and when I split the nodule another one was found inside. I kept both parts of the nodule and prepped the one inside and on top After prepping them I found out that neither of those were complete, but the were decent in size and well preserved. The second nodule on the other hand hand was much better, a piece of the Bactrites was sticking out from both ends of the nodule, so I new I had a complete specimen. The prepping was relatively hard as different parts of the cone had different forms of preservation, but in the end I got the whole specimen out of the matrix and is my best Bactrites until now. enjoythe pictures: 1st nodule with the specimen inside: after prepp: After prep with the top of the nodule containing an other fragment. prepp on the 2nd nodule: after prepp, with the different kinds of preservation visible: and the whole lot:

I found this rock in a creek in middle Tennessee. (Mississippian, St. Louis Limestone & Warsaw Limestone) It has several fossil imprints and I’m wondering if the circled one is a cephalopod. If not, can anyone tell me what is it?

Locally, I find quite a few large cephalopods. Here is an example: Unfortunately this specimen was deteriorated. and I collected only it's exposed siphuncle. After gluing it back together, I noticed definite narrowings that I do not understand. Other siphuncles I have found have raised areas on them, not narrowings. Any ideas on this anatomical aspect??? Here is another cephalopod I found that day. Love the crystals inside.

I went hunting in the rain yesterday. It wasn’t one of my most successful hunts, but I still managed to find some cool stuff. I found this in The Grayson Formation, Cretaceous in the Denton, TX area. I had never hunted that area of the Grayson before and it was different as every area of the Grayson seems to be. I found this section of a heteromorph. I don’t believe it is a Mariella. I am wondering if it could be a section of Turrilites. I believe it only has 2 rows of tubercles. Any thoughts? Side view Top down view Edge view

I can't seem to find an ID for this find. I believe this may be a siphuncle. What do you guys think? The "V" shaped sutures are really throwing me off. Has anyone seen a straight shelled cephalopod with this "V" pattern? Kinda neat how you can see how this was buried, preserving one side as it weathered the other. Then along came a dozen crinoids or so a used it as a nice base.

The missus and I spent a good part of the day at our spot in the middle Devonian. I chopped out several large slabs while Deb split some of the smaller chunks and managed some overburden duty. The split in the wall may seem promising, but there are a lot of interlocking pieces that have to be removed in sequence, something like taking apart a jigsaw puzzle, but needing to locate the key stones first.