Search the Community

I did lots of online searching on which states trilobites have and haven't been found in, and compiled this. Its not as straight forward as you might think. Green means trilobites have been found in that state on the surface and are native to that area. Yellow means technically a trilobite has been found there but was found below the surface or the rocks are not native to the state. Red means no trilobite has ever been found in the state except for when humans have transported them there. Green: Alaska, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Yellow: Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota Red: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii. No trilobites have been found in these states. The only trilobites in Florida and North Dakota came from cores that came from very far below the surface. Louisiana has trilobites from gravel that were transported via rivers from the Tennessee region. I have found very little references on trilobites coming from Oregon and Mississippi but have heard they exist. As far as Washington DC goes, I haven't seen anything that has said a trilobite has been found there but there are Paleozoic rocks at the surface according to macrostrat and trilobites have been found not too far away so I left it grey. Does anyone see anything incorrect with the above information? Before I undertook this task I knew trilobites were widespread but not this widespread. Trilobites are everywhere. I thought I'd share with the group.

There are several images, videos, and interactive websites that show what Earth looked like millions of years ago. I was wondering which ones do you use and which are most accurate.

Hey everyone! I'd really appreciate someone's help who could help me decode some language. Here's a quote from a paper about a fossil locale in the Santa Ana mountains in Southern California: Where do I start?! Can anyone tell me how I might go about retracing this to a pinpoint on, say, google maps so I know where to hike out to? I have tracked down the East Fork of Ladd Canyon but that's as far as I've gone... Thanks for reading and again, any help would be much appreciated. Justin

Rambling thought. Recently we were at a dance and in the background there was a big screen TV (sound muted) playing a NHL hockey game. The score was 'Edmonton 2, TB 2'. One of the woman got out her cell phone and texted her grandson in Thunder Bay, Ontario to ask if he was watching the game. Her grandson texted her back and advised the TB was 'Tampa Bay' and not Thunder Bay. She had never heard of Tampa Bay. She asked Di, my partner, and Di said the same and Tampa Bay sounds like a place in Newfoundland. I knew where Tampa was because of folks collecting fossils on the Peace River. However, then I remembered a trip I took to China. There is something like 55 cities in China with over a million in population and I had only heard of 5 of them. The rest could have been names of dishes on a Chinese restaurant menu. I learned a few more cities when there but only because they were jumping off points for fossil locales. The vast majority of the world's population has never heard of or know where Alberta is. However the numbers would rise among fossil collectors. It's dawned on me that I learn most of my geography via fossils. I actually have a messed up view of the world. On a map I can pinpoint the Kem Kem beds in Morocco or Lyme Regis, UK but Calcutta? ...I just know it's in India. I know exactly where Kemmerer, Wyoming or Delta, Utah are but Baltimore is just over on the US east coast 'somewhere'. When I was young I learned geography through stamp collecting. Since then its largely via paleontology. If I was in charge making a globe, it would mostly show fossil sites.

ive found a few fossils as a kid and actually my first fossil find is actually a 1 in 1,000,000 kind of thing how did i find it? i was just playing Jurrasic park... im not kidding i was in my backyard pretending to be Alan Grant "digging for fossils" and i was just hitting random rocks with a small pick and suddenly an actual fossil my reaction was "oh..." i was so dumbfounded any way so i was wondering how scientifically valuable would a leaf with what is probably the branch it came from worth for research? (no financial gain) i want to identify them both however i don't have them with me right now and the petrified branch is something ive not seen and cant even look up its clearly petrified wood however its black and looks almost as if its coated in fine sugar however it looks like its actually fine quarts crystals i was also wondering if its worth mapping both my fossils and the fossils of other kids i went to school with because the types of fossils seems to show what the land looked like at some point its thought that the area was always a muddy silty plain (there's an area near by with so many fossils they cover the beaches and area like sand) until the natural walls of the lagoon broke around 400 years ago and the area flooded and turned into a bay (port Philip bay if you look at it you will know what i mean) however there seems to be a thin stretch that had a lot of petrified wood and leaf fossils i don't know if anyone knows that already or if it would not be considered important Any way cheers guys