Search the Community

Any ID on this tooth I found this morning?

I went back to the same spot today as last week and cleaned up.

Tuesday morning, I made a trip back to the Ellis County creek where I've found so many teeth. I had been making a short hike across the pastures of two land owners to get to this creek, but the last time I asked permission, one of the land owners refused me, saying he had made a deal to give exclusive rights to another fossil hunting family. I can still get to the creek, but now it's a very long hike for me. So, I waited until the hottest part of summer was gone to try that long hike. When I reached the small section of the creek where I'd been finding most of the teeth, this is what I saw.

Work has been interfering with both my cycling and fossil hunting time lately. I managed a day off today and started the day with a 30 mile bike ride. But there's a creek in Ellis County I've been wanting to hunt, and I really wanted to get my first look at it while the water is low. With Hurricane Laura bearing down on the coast, I decided to make that hunting trip today, not being at all sure how much longer the water will be this low. It's an Eagle Ford outcrop I went to in this creek. With my late start, it was 11:00 before my hike down the creek got me to the outcrop. I left at 2:00, so only had three hours for my first time exploring it. The temperature was in the 90's and the humidity was high, so it was definitely stifling hot. It did cloud up at times, and actually rained for a few minutes. But it was mostly just sunny and hot. The outcrop is the typical blue-gray clay you find with Eagle Ford.

I have been wanting to make it back to the Ellis County creek where I found so many teeth, but by the time I could do it, it had rained enough to raise the creek quite a bit. The water level has just now dropped again. I was working near Ellis County this morning, and when I finished very early, it seemed the perfect time to go back. Rain is forecast for this evening and the next couple of days that will likely bring the creek up again. Below is what I found that was either loose, or easily removed from matrix.

I found these in a creek bed in southern Ellis County, Texas. But there are also lots of them in the North Sulfur River. What are they? They have ridges on one side and are smooth on the other, just like a shell, but they are flat. They vary in size and thickness. The top images show the ridged side on the left and the smooth side on the right. I see plenty of them by themselves, but they are also found in other rocks, right alongside what are obviously fossils, like in the bottom image.

I have enjoyed my trips to NSR and Mineral Wells, but they are a long enough drive from Gun Barrel City that I'm wanting to find closer places to hunt, for days when I don't have all day, or just want to stay closer to home. There isn't much to be found here in Henderson County, but Ellis and Navarro counties, just to the west, are both known to have fossils. I spent some time looking at google satellite images, picked out some likely places to look at, and did some scouting yesterday. It had rained the day before, so while I looked at several possible places to hunt, the only place I actually did some hiking in was a small creek bed that I thought wouldn't have too much water to deal with. It's in the southern part of Ellis County, and it does, indeed, have some fossils. Here's a view of the creek bed, and what I brought home.

Yesterday I hunted an Upper Santonian Austin Chalk site in Ellis county between downpours of rain. This was my first time at the site. I was looking around a pile of rocks with some boulders mixed in and found this on one of the boulders. It is tiny, whatever it is, about 1 cm wide. Now I must admit that I am more familiar with the fauna of the Upper Coniacian Austin Chalk but to me this looks more like half of the aptychus of an ammonite than a bivalve. Since an aptychus was made of calcite I believe that it would be preserved in chalk, though the actual fossilized material is gone and this is just the steinkern of what ever it was. Here is the best picture that I have of it. Sorry that the quality is poor. I took it while I was at the site and I can’t get a better picture right now. Hopfully this will be sufficient.

In March of this year I found a heteromorphic ammonite that has had me curious ever since. So yesterday I finally sent an email about it to a local ammonite expert, Ron Morin, who is associated with the Dallas Paleontological Society. I had a correspondence with him in May of this year as it related to him identifying my Phlycticrioceras trinodosum heteromorphic ammonite which I recently added to 'Collections'. That's when I first talked to him. Then at the Dallas Paleontological Society's Fossil Mania event in October, I was talking to Roger Farish about my unidentified ammonite. He recommended that I contact him again for identification. Here is the email and the pictures that I sent him yesterday. I will post an update to this thread when he responds, which from my experience might be weeks. I have edited it to remove any slightly sensitive information like my name and more specific location information (I'm paranoid), as well as to fix any grammatical errors and to add relevant reference designations in between the < and > symbols: "Hello! I am Heteromorph, the one who contacted you to identify my Phlycticrioceras trinodosum specimen in May of this year, and I was wondering if you could help me identify another heteromorphic ammonite from the Upper Coniacian stage of the Austin Chalk. This specimen was found on March 23 of this year in a creek in Ellis county. It is, in fact, within half a mile of where I found the last specimen that I sent to you for identification. The stratigraphy of this area is the Atco member of the Austin Chalk, Prionocycloceras gabrielense zone. My problem is that even though it resembles P. trinodosum, there are differences that would make me reluctant to indenify it as such. To date, I have not found one like it. It is similar to P. trinodosum in that the whorl section is compressed, it has ventral tubercles, and it has an open planispiral shape. But it also has 3 key differences that make me think it is either a different species or it is very pathological. I list these below. First and foremost, the main difference is the lack of any ventrolateral tubercles, which are one of the defining characteristics of P. trinodosum. On both the specimen itself and its negative, it appears to be free of any ventrolateral tubercles. The only tubercles that I can see are the ventral tubercles which are something that P. trinodosum has as well. Second, the ribs are shaped differently than P. trinodosum. While P. trinodosum has rectiradiate ribs, this specimen has ribs which are rectiradiate until about half way up from the umbilicus, at which point it bends. Due to the fragmentary nature of this specimen, I have a hard time determining whether it bends abapically or adapically. Third, the ribs are more costate on this specimen than any of the twelve P. trinodosum specimens that I have found in the Austin Chalk. It has a rib index of 7, while the most costate specimen that I have found and know for sure is a P. trinodosum specimen only has a rib index of 5. While this is not unheard of for this species, with specimens of this species having rib indexes of up to 8 (Emerson et al. 1994), yet from my experience it is apparently very unusual for this part of the Austin Chalk. The closest thing that I have seen to my specimen is illustrated on Plate 11, fig 2 of Young, 1963 (as P. sp. cfr. douvillei), the similarity being the fact that they both have rib indexes of 7. After that, though, the similarity ends in that P. sp cfr. P. douvillei still has ventrolateral tubercles and rectiradiate ribs. I also found a very small P. trinodosum negative in the same creek just a few feet away. It has ventrolateral tubercles and a rib index of 4. The ribs are rectiradiate. A photo of it is not attached here. My specimen is 87mm long including its negative and has a whorl height of 34½mm. The oval whorl section is compressed like P. trinodosum. It is shown first in the attached photo DSCN5355. Aside from the specimen in question, for reference I have also attached photos of two P. trinodosum specimens that I have found. They are both from within 5 miles of the creek site, so they are on roughly the same stratigraphic level. What I am calling P1 is shown first in the attached photo DSCN5281 <F13> in comparison with the specimen in question. P1's negative is shown first in the attached photo DSCN5394 <22>. The positive is 69mm long when both pieces of it are measured together but 53mm when just measuring the largest piece. It has a whorl height of 31mm and a whorl breadth of 9mm. Rib index of 4. It was found within a quarter of a mile of the creek site. Because it is has just a slightly shorter whorl section to the specimen in question it is a good comparison piece. The specimen which I am calling P2 is shown in the attached photo DSCN5361 <F27>. It is only a negative but I am attaching a picture of it here because it is the specimen that I referenced earlier with a rib index of 5. It is 23mm long and has a whorl height of 15mm. It was found about 4-5 miles to the south-west of the creek site. For reference, here is a post I made about the P. trinodosum specimen that I sent you a picture of in May. I thank you very much for your help in advance. Sincerely, Heteromorph" I have given an alphanumerical designation to each picture for ease of reference. I guess it is probably kinda silly to have so many pictures that this is necessary. If this is stupid, than I extent my apologies to the Mods. I will patiently receive correction. Thank you to everyone in advance. F1 F2 F3 F4