Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'jurassic'.
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
From the album: Early Jurassic fossils of Northamptonshire, UK
-
The Canjuers sediments are slightly younger than the Solnhofen limestones in Germany. Gyrodus (from Greek: γύρος gyros, 'curved' and Greek: ὀδούς odoús 'tooth') is a genus widely distributed in the Jurassic. Two species, G. circularis and G. hexagonus, are described from Solnhofen. This distinctly elongated looking fish from the Canjuers deposits of about the same age is probably a species not yet described. Diagnosis from Lambers 1991, p. 490 (Genus, emend. Hennig 1906): ”Pycnodontid fishes with the following combination of characters: body form hexagonal; skull without ganoin; dermal bones tuberculated; skull roof composed of frontal, parietal, median dermosupraoccipital, dermosphenotic, dermopterotic, one median and two paired supratemporals; mosaic dermethmoid; snout and cheek region covered with small, polygonal scalelike plates; maxilla half-oval, edentulous; mouth parallel to body axis; gular absent but gular region covered with small scales; two acinaciform branchiostegals; premaxilla with nasal process, bearing two styliform teeth; dentary with four styliform teeth; five longitudinal rows of vomerine teeth, four longitudinal rows of splenial teeth; squamation complete over the whole body, scales towards the caudal smaller than in front, in young specimens tuberculated, in adult specimens reticulated, lacking ganoin, squamation extending between the bases of the dorsal and anal lepidotrichia and covering the basis of the caudal lepidotrichia dorsal and ventral ridgescales with up to 6 spinelets; notochord persistent through life; neural and haemal arches not surrounding the notochord 28—31 paired dorsal elements, 12—14 paired postabdominal elements in front of tail, 12—14 paired ribs; first 10 neural spines autogenous; neural and haemal spines in caudal region with anterior and posterior laminar expansions, strengthened with ridges; curved postcoelomic bone connected to 13th—15th vertebral element; pectoral fin with 25—30 rays; pelvic fin with 10-15 rays; dorsal and anal fins falcate, fin rays bifurcated from their base, transversely segmented, transverse segments tuberculated, dorsal fin 30—40 rays, anal fin about 30 rays; caudal fin stalked, deeply forked; about seven neural spines, about ten hypochordal elements, comprising haemal spines and hypurals, incorporated in the support of the caudal fin, one urodermal, about 40 rays; 7—10 epaxial fin rays; no fulcra; infraorbital canal connected to the preopercular canal, representing the horizontal pitline and more ventrally by a vertical canal, representing the vertical pit-line; supraorbital canal extends into the dermosupraoccipital, where it forms the supratemporal commissure; dorsal lateral line present up to the origin of the dorsal fin.” Identified by M. Ebert, Jura Museum Eichstätt. References: Agassiz, L. (1843). Recherches Sur Les Poissons Fossiles. Tome I (livr. 18). Imprimerie de Petitpierre, Neuchatel xxxii-188. Hennig, G. (1906). Gyrodus und die Organization der Pycnodonten. Palaeontographica, 53,137-208. Kriwet, J. and Schmitz, L. (2005). New insight into the distribution and palaeobiology of the pycnodont fish Gyrodus. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 50 (1): 49–56. Peyer, K., Charbonnier, S., Allain, R., Läng, É. & Vacant, R. (2014) A new look at the Late Jurassic Canjuers conservation Lagerstätte (Tithonian, Var, France). Comptes Rendus Palevol, Volume 13, Issue 5. Pages 403-420, ISSN 1631-0683.
-
Taxonomy from Fossilworks.org. Etymology: Lepidota (Greek), a form of lepidotós, scaly. Grande & Bemis 1998, p.490: “ Originally described as †Megalurus lepidotus by Agassiz in 1833:146, and listed that way by numerous authors over the next 100 years or so, but †Megalurus Agassiz is a junior homonym--see generic list for †Amiopsis Kner, 1863, above. Also referred to as †Urocles lepidotus by Jordan (1919:567); Lange (1968:32); Lambers (1992:295); and others." Grande & Bemis 1998, p.493: “Emended species diagnosis-†Amiopsis lepidota differs from other species of the genus by the following adult characters A through D (note there is a range of overlap between some species for characters B, C, and D). (A) The opercle is wider than in other species of the genus (0.96-1.00 compared to 0.77-0.83 in †A. woodwardi, 0.91-0.92 in †A. damoni, 0.82 in †A. dolloi, and an estimated 0.80 in †A. prisca, based on our study sample). (B) There are seven to nine procurrent epaxial caudal rays (versus five or six in †A. damoni, and three in †A. dolloi; the count in †A. prisca is unknown, and the count of †A. woodwardi is within the range of †A. lepidota). (C) There are 61-65 total centra and 48-52 total vertebrae in post-juvenile stages (versus 58-61 centra and 45-48 vertebrae in †A. woodwardi, 59-60 centra and 47 vertebrae in †A. damoni, 56-57 centra and 46 vertebrae in †A. dolloi, and 70-74 centra and 55-56 vertebrae in †A. prisca). (D) There are 17-19 dorsal proximal radials (versus 14-16 in †A. woodwardi, and 15-17 in †A. dolloi; †A. damoni and †A. prisca are within the range of †A. lepidota)." Line drawing from Grande & Bemis 1998, p. 497: References: Kner, R. (1863). Über einige fossile Fische aus den Kreide- und Tertiärschichten von Comen und Podsused. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 48:126-148. Agassiz, L. (1833-1844). Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles. 5 volumes plus supplement. Published by the author, printed by Petitpierre: Neuchâtel. Jordan, D. S. (1919). New genera of fishes. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences. Lambers, P. (1992). On the ichthyofauna of the Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone (Upper Jurassic, Germany). Doctoral thesis. Privately published, Ryksuniversiteit Groningen, 336 pp. Lance Grande & William E. Bemis (1998) A Comprehensive Phylogenetic Study of Amiid Fishes (Amiidae) Based on Comparative Skeletal Anatomy. an Empirical Search for Interconnected Patterns of Natural History, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 18:S1, 1-696, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.1998.10011114.
-
Everything look alright with this Sauropod claw?
msantix posted a topic in Is It Real? How to Recognize Fossil Fabrications
Hi, I think this does look all natural with no obvious red flags, but I wanted to make sure with some opinions here. It comes from Ait Hani, Morocco (Jurassic in age). Thank you!
-
Here is my Pliosaurus macromerus cut bone. Species: Pliosaurus macromerus Synonyms: Strétosaurus , Pliosaurus rossicus Fossil age: 180 million years (Lower Jurassic) Location: Port Mulgrave, North Whitby, England Formation: Upper Lias Fossil size: 3,7'' x 1,9'' If you think there are errors in my information please let me know.
-
This weekend Natalie and I had a little field trip near Boulogne sur Mer in France. It is a few kilometers more Southwards than the Chalk cliffs we often prospect. The fossils here are a bit harder to find, but on a few occasions it is pissible to find marine reptile remains. We didn't find lots of fossils, a few gastropod steinkerns and a beautuful echinoid: Perisalenia koenigii. On our way back home we made a quick stop at a small construction site where I've found a few Micraster sp. echinoids before, there hasn't been a lot of activity since we last visited the spot, but it still delivered a very nice specimen. Enjoy the pictures: Perisalenia koenigii : The Micraster sp. from the construction site:
-
Fossil Hunting in the Pas-de-Calais So last week was a lot of fun for me. Saturday afternoon we left home to go to northern France, the Pas-de-Calais. We first stopped in Belgium to visit some family, so we only arrived at our B&B near Wissant in the late Sunday afternoon. Our main goal was to go to that region in order to do, obviously, fossil-hunting! And that is what we did. I gotta say that I was (pleasantly) surprised with how things ended up! Read on to see what we found... Day 1: Wissant The evening of our arrival we were walking in the small city of Wissant, which lies in between the two famous Caps: Cap-Blanc-Nez (to the north) and Cap-Gris-Nez (to the south). Therefore it is a popular place for visitors to stay during the holidays, as it is ideally placed in between the two main touristic sites of the area. We had a really nice Bed & Breakfast on the outskirts of the city, so that was good too. Anyways, so we were walking the city to try and find a restaurant for the evening. At some point, I come across this small area where there is very dry mud/sand-like sediment, in the middle of the city. I look inside and there are lots of bones and jaws from different critters! Also a few shells. Although everything was in matrix, I still suspect that the things are modern (in the sense of 'non-fossil'. I'd say it still is a few hundreds of years old.), mainly because the bones are from sheep, cow and the shells are from edible species. So probably remnants of some primitive food-left-overs junk pile or something. There were also deer bones too (roe?), not as sure as to how that got there. Anyways, even though the bones are probably modern, still cool finds IMO! Total haul
- 102 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- audreselles
- cap-blanc-nez
- (and 9 more)
-
The genus previously known as Ophiopsis Agassiz, 1834 (except Ophiopsis muensteri Agassiz, 1834), was reassigned by Lane & Ebert 2015 to Ophiopsiella. Taxonomy from Lane & Ebert 2015. Lane & Ebert 2015, p. e883238-4 :”Diagnosis—The genus Ophiopsiella is characterized by the following unique combination of features: medium-sized halecomorph fishes with body depth increased anteriorly to form a low hump and tapering posteriorly; parietals equal in length to dermopterotics; antorbitals do not reach the orbit; lacrimal large and deep; *low number of suborbitals with ventral-most suborbital represented by a single large bone (rather than numerous small bones); rostral with lateral horns; posterior infraorbital inclined posterodorsally; preopercle reaches dorsal border of opercle; subopercular with anterior dorsal extension; dermopterotic deep posteriorly and tapering anteriorly; single, undivided dorsal fin; vertebrae lacking posterior fossae; scales have posterior serrations; dorsal fin elongate, occupying over one-third of the dorsal body length, tapering posteriorly; caudal fin forked; *17–19 caudal fin rays; main lateral line continuing into a row of small ossicles between the seventh and eighth caudal fin rays; scales thick, rhomboidal, not deeper than broad; pelvic fins opposite the midpoint of the dorsal fin; *high number (14C) of caudal peduncle scales; posterior border of dorsal fin opposite anal fin; robust maxilla with a shallow posterior notch; lateral line pores located within scale borders (not forming a posterior notch); and basal and fringing fulcra present on both dorsal and ventral lobes of caudal fin.” Lane & Ebert 2015, p. e883238-4: “Emended Species Diagnosis—Ophiopsiella with *44 vertical scale rows from postcleithra to hinge line; 24–25 dorsal fin rays; 18–19 principal caudal fin rays; *anteriormost four dorsal fin rays extremely elongated compared with subsequent rays, forming a crescent-shaped concave curve posteriorly; *caudal fin deeply forked posteriorly; posttemporal, extrascapular, and postcleithra serrated posteriorly; anterodorsal body scales serrated along their entire posterior border; prominent predorsal hump with maximum body depth at dorsal fin origin. Pterygial formula: " References: Agassiz, L. 1834. Abgerissene Bemerkungen über fossile Fische. pp. 379–390 in: von Leonhard, K. C. & Bronn, H. G. (eds.): Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1834 (4). E. Schweitzbarts Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. Lane, J. A. & Ebert, M., 2015: A taxonomic reassessment of Ophiopsis (Halecomorphi, Ionoscopiformes), with a revision of Upper Jurassic species from the Solnhofen Archipelago, and a new genus of Ophiopsidae. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35 (1): e883238. doi: 10.1080/02724634.2014.883238
- 2 comments
-
- 1
-
-
- blumenberg
- eichstätt
- (and 6 more)
-
Here is a 3.5 cm long tooth from the tiouraren formation, tiouraren hill, Tenere desert, Niger. It was listed as a possible spinostropheus tooth. What do people here think? @Troodon
.JPG.00fafcc286408fd68b9941e667409c6f.thumb.JPG.a77099762a230de6213ef883167386af.JPG)
