Jump to content
MarcoSr

Searching for Hell Creek Formation micro sites/micro lenses

Recommended Posts

jpc

Hi marco sr.   This TFF member has given you all the advice he can.  : )

In the meanwhile, it is pretty snowy in our area, so field work is on hold. 

 

Any chance you can post close ups of these finds?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
1 hour ago, jpc said:

Hi marco sr.   This TFF member has given you all the advice he can.  : )

In the meanwhile, it is pretty snowy in our area, so field work is on hold. 

 

Any chance you can post close ups of these finds?

 

 

Jean-Pierre

 

Thank you for your advice.  It is very useful.

 

I can post close ups.  Which numbers below are you interested in?

 

 

5de55544c8532_SpecimensfromMatrix11272019mod.jpg.e8a7c77f11faaa07a8acab404e025c0e.jpg

 

 

Marco Sr.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike from North Queensland

Marco Sr as always it is interesting to read your reports on your search through the various matrix layers for the micro fossils and your desire to search for new material.

 

Mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
1 hour ago, Mike from North Queensland said:

Marco Sr as always it is interesting to read your reports on your search through the various matrix layers for the micro fossils and your desire to search for new material.

 

Mike 

 

Mike

 

Thank you.  It is always exciting for me to find new micro sites/micro matrix.  I just wanted to let TFF members know with this post that a lot of times things just don't work out as I had hoped.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpc

3, 5 and all those on the right if that is not asking too much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
19 hours ago, jpc said:

3, 5 and all those on the right if that is not asking too much.  

 

Jean-Pierre

 

Closeups of specimens

 

3 Croc tooth 4mm

 

 

5de67a45ba198_3Champsosaurustooth4mm.jpg.bb73ecedcec4f14e4147beb69ecc9a8c.jpg     5de67a40b6161_3Champsosaurustooth4mm1.jpg.9ee65c5bbcfc2ff9ddfd7c5933743096.jpg

 

 

5 fish scale 7mm      Looking at this under magnification I still think that this is a fish scale but it could be geologic.

 

 

5de67a4960f8e_5maybefishscale7mm.jpg.fdbfca98f048ea51d14d20ca5435ad9b.jpg

 

5de67a47a81cd_5maybefishscale7mm1.jpg.083bc29ada54dbc34c49c81f34ae9c9b.jpg

 

 

 

 

The following are what I though were bones or could be bones.

 

6 bone 11 mm

 

 

5de67a4ce48b2_6bone11mm.jpg.c98560a829fac91bc761e3a4f49a634e.jpg

 

5de67a4b58bf4_6bone11mm1.jpg.b41fba426eb82acd6f914432fb911a1f.jpg

 

 

7 bone 7 mm

 

 

5de67a503717a_7bone7mm.jpg.37ade9433c0b68c7c529f2661506ec95.jpg     5de67a4e64573_7bone7mm1.jpg.9327575414655d34747b77b3d5fc0f29.jpg

 

 

8 bone 5 mm

 

 

5de67a52d8cdc_8bone5mm.jpg.47076a6f6f9abe7a122013e4ac335701.jpg     5de67a51677ce_8bone5mm1.jpg.48078311654e1333783b39d6506d5d7f.jpg

 

 

9 bone 4 mm

 

 

5de67a5610d03_9bone4mm.jpg.e7a7fc32488c6d02fc7e5f444b5129d3.jpg     5de67a5476b0f_9bone4mm1.jpg.58041d723ea7557c47ecdda58f4b0f10.jpg

 

 

10 bone 3 mm

 

 

5de67a59528b3_10bone3mm.jpg.2520a8db8118780e0b8df2ac90c62794.jpg     5de67a57976bb_10bone3mm1.jpg.e636a10dd4791ed0dae897f510bcf938.jpg

 

 

11 bone 3.5 mm

 

 

5de67a5c495f2_11bone3_5mm.jpg.2fbb3f269efc78d37406ed8acb426473.jpg     5de67a5aba31f_11bone3_5mm1.jpg.845d514ae2ba92ae6d019f85d9a16b99.jpg

 

12 bone 5 mm

 

 

5de67a5f59642_12bone5mm.jpg.87a795bfd598f3775a11f602947733a9.jpg     5de67a5e0af1a_12bone5mm1.jpg.0f929838d73f88095d89ca998fd04e1b.jpg

 

 

Marco Sr.

Edited by MarcoSr
change to croc based upon replies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troodon

The tooth looks like Croc not Champosaurus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpc
42 minutes ago, Troodon said:

The tooth looks like Croc not Champosaurus 

I agree.  The fish scale looks a lot like a gar scale but it has some thing that bug me.  I think it might be geological.  

 

6 is the only one I can tell you anything about.. it looks like a fish spine. 

11 and 8 might be geological...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jersey Devil
3 hours ago, Troodon said:

The tooth looks like Croc not Champosaurus 


Do you have any tips for differentiation between the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troodon

Both have a cutting edges but a champ is long and lean not bulbous 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike from North Queensland
22 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

Thank you.  It is always exciting for me to find new micro sites/micro matrix.  I just wanted to let TFF members know with this post that a lot of times things just don't work out as I had hoped.

 

Marco Sr.

Marco Sr.

 

So true when looking for micro material, but if you do not try you will not find.

Also to note for the TFF members that when collecting matrix for micro fossils from the same lens the amount of viable fossils can vary greatly as well as the composition with relation to hardness of the matrix can vary considerably. One site I collected from the matrix may be friable enough to sieve with a little water at one point and a metre away can be that hard that to work the material would need a bath in acid for a month. Having said that I have only collected matrix from cretaceous marine lenses that were as deposited when the animals died not from reworked material where the fossils have possibly been concentrated.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
2 hours ago, The Jersey Devil said:


Do you have any tips for differentiation between the two?

 

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

Both have a cutting edges but a champ is long and lean not bulbous 

 

5 hours ago, Troodon said:

The tooth looks like Croc not Champosaurus 

 

4 hours ago, jpc said:

I agree. 

 

 

Looking at the below figure and the text from DeMar Jr. 06 28 12 "An Illustrated Guide to latest Cretaceous Vertebrate Microfossils of the Hell Creek Formation of northeastern Montana"  I agree on croc tooth based upon the carina  offset and not running all the way to the base of the crown.  The very small size of this tooth, 4 mm, is why I really wasn't thinking croc.

 

image.thumb.png.995f09c6c210d9b52ec0784e8965290c.png

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
4 hours ago, jpc said:

I agree.  The fish scale looks a lot like a gar scale but it has some thing that bug me.  I think it might be geological.  

 

6 is the only one I can tell you anything about.. it looks like a fish spine. 

11 and 8 might be geological...

 

 

 

Jean-Pierre

 

I changed that tooth to croc in my posts above.  I wasn't expecting croc teeth as small as 4 mm.

 

That specimen doesn't look quite right to me also.  However, there are concentric faint lines that are really hard to see in the picture that match fish scales that I have.

 

I have only looked at a very small amount of Hell Creek matrix before this batch and haven't really learned the texture of the bones yet.  If a specimen doesn't have a distinctive shape like 8 and 11 it is hard for me to tell for sure.  I figured that they might be geologic.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
2 hours ago, Mike from North Queensland said:

Marco Sr.

 

Having said that I have only collected matrix from cretaceous marine lenses that were as deposited when the animals died not from reworked material where the fossils have possibly been concentrated.

 

Mike

 

Mike

 

The reworked lenses can really concentrate the micros.  The problem with reworked lenses is that the micros can be really beat up and water worn.  I have found a few reworked lenses that are very concentrated with micros and most of the fossils are pristine.  But that is not common at all.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpc

 marco... look at the cross section on those two potentially non-bones.  It might be different than the others.

 

Yes. I see those concentric lines n the opossible gar scale, but the groove running through the whole of one side is not normal.  It is an odd one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
11 hours ago, jpc said:

 marco... look at the cross section on those two potentially non-bones.  It might be different than the others.

 

Yes. I see those concentric lines n the opossible gar scale, but the groove running through the whole of one side is not normal.  It is an odd one.  

 

Jean-Pierre

 

I took a really close look at the fish scale looking specimen.  Under really high magnification the concentric lines are really clear and definitely match a gar scale.  Also the groove looks like damage where a piece of the scale broke away.  So now I'm 99% sure it is a gar scale.

 

Looking at the cross section of the specimens was interesting.  The for sure bones were uneven, not fully solid and almost flaky looking.  Like a lot of the bony fish material that I see from the Paleocene through Pliocene.  Specimens 8 and 11 are even and solid.  So they definitely look different in the cross section.  However I haven't seen enough micro specimens from the Hell Creek Formation to really interpret that.  So for now, I won't toss them but will consider them geologic.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×