Search the Community

Hi fossils friends, here is a little taphonomic accumulation plate with many Olenekian (lower Triassic) Ammonoids. It comes from the Vikinghøgda Formation - Sassendalen group (Sassendalen valley - Spitsbergen island - Svalbard archipelago - Norway) Most of the Ammonoids are Svalbardiceras spitzbergensis (Freblod, 1930). Associated on the plate is an unidentified orthoconic Nautiloid (never seen this in the associated litterature), a bivalve and a partial Ammonoid from the Hedenstroemiidae family (at the top-left). Size of the plate is 11,5 X 9,5 cm. I prepared it with my Dremel engraver in about 8 hours.

Found this fossil in a creek in middle Tennessee. I originally thought it was a crinoid column, until user ynot pointed out that it was more than likely an orthocone shell. Judging from where it was found, it seems to be from the Ordovician. So now my question is: what species of orthocone do you think it is? Note the size (5 1/2" long, 2" wide) and the segmented pattern. Thanks for the help!

It has been a while since I made a decent post on this forum ( spending most of my time here in the chatroom ) But last weekend I took the courage to prep some of my recent and older finds. In my older posts you could notice that I’m particularly interested in the Paleozoic fossils of my small country, especially if I can get some cephalopods. Although they are relatively rare here, we found a few deposits wielding them, and in the quarry of Lompret a specific layer has been really productive for them. Their conservation isn’t always very good and they might be hard to spot, but this I a selection that I made and prepped. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do. https://goo.gl/photos/s1N12Vic27d49GUb9 This one had a little surprise during the prep, while clearing the goniatite I discovered a small orthocone under it. ( Manticoceras sp + orthocone: might be orthoceras or Bactrites ) https://goo.gl/photos/Ek4BYCRckhLBxNWP7 Manticoceras sp. https://goo.gl/photos/hw1LotmNF4KzxCyp6 Multiple orthocones, the largest one judging by the position of the siphuncle should be an Orthoceras sp. https://goo.gl/photos/thc9WLxVT6zWgrTC8 Manticoceras sp. https://goo.gl/photos/bS4EniPSXf1miQVEA This is one of my favorites: a double Manticoceras sp. https://goo.gl/photos/exfdSJ2X1XzFtMy78 https://goo.gl/photos/oFvCtRKuWauJtKwL8 This is probably the best one in my colection: 3 complete Manticoceras and a partial one and a Orthocone. ( that last wan came loose during the prep and was glued back in position. ) I realy like the tiny specimen in the chamber of the larger one Cheers, Kevin

This 2.7cm long fragment is from the Brigantian (U. Mississippian) of SW Scotland. I've skimmed through the Treatise (orthocerida and actinocerida) and a few other books but can't find anything Carboniferous with this sort of decoration. There's no siphuncle visible at either end so I guess it's a piece of the living chamber - a pity because it might have helped narrow it down. Any comments appreciated!

TRIP REPORT - TULLY, NY Finds included Orthocone Cephalopods, Trilobites, Nautiloids, Devonian Assemblages We didn't have much time for fossil site visits this year so our 4th of July weekend had to be special. We decided to combine fossils and fishing which gave us 2 days at Tully NY for fossils, and 3 days at Lake Cayuga for boating/fishing and fossiling. This report covers the Tully site visit. I'll post a separate trip report for Lake Cayuga. As our friends on the Forum know, Nan and I try to set specific goals and targets for each fossil site visit and that's what we did for our 4th of July fossil and fishing vacation. Our goal for the Tully visit was to find Devonian fossils that were unique and collectible. We also wanted to find larger Devonian fossils if possible. I called and got permission in advance from the land owner to collect at our favorite Devonian site but when we got there, we were disappointed to find that our best spot had been picked clean and a lot of fossil rich rubble had been removed. Last year we found many large brachiopods, crinoids and several species of trilobites but this year there were no large specimens, only "baby fossils." Also, it was raining both days so we didn't do our customary cracking and fracking of shale which yields our best finds and this was a factor. I immediately found 1) a large well-worn nautiloid shaped fossil, and 2) a smaller nautiloid shaped impression in shale. These are not well articulated but I haven't seen a lot of large nautiloids from Tully. I also noticed some very large diameter cephalopod segments about 2 inches in diameter. Often we find these flattened in shale but these pieces were fully articulated cylinder shaped segments. This clue suggested we might find more complete specimens, so we started looking for more complete specimens. Nan was looking at a vertical face exposed by the construction work and suddenly started screaming that she found something cool. I ran over and sure enough, there was a large tube shaped fossil with segments and a smooth skin...standing upright exactly where it was preserved. In the first image below you can see the position of the tube in the formation and the relationship to the horizontal layers which suggests that this is NOT a concretion or geological anomaly, but a real fossil. The second image shows a closeup of the fossil in situ. Closer inspection shows a center stele at the tip of the top rounded segment which you can see in the image below. It took me about an hour to carefully extract the tube (Nan is better at finding fossils and I'm probably better at excavating them). Excited by the find, I kept excavating along the seam and soon discovered another fossil with the same shape, configuration and positioning. Later, I found another partial specimen about 300 yards away - ironically, at the same place we thought was devoid of fossils. All 3 fossils were the same relative size, shape and positioned vertically in the formation. As I excavated the fossils from the formation, I kept thinking about RomanK who has found tree and plant fossils embedded vertically and I was "channeling Roman" as I removed these finds. As it turns out, these were not orthocones, but turned out to be Devonian tree fossils (Wattieza). I started a separate thread in the Fossil ID section.