Foray into Foraminifera

[Bonehunter]

Good morning all!- hope you are all healthy!

        I found these foraminifera (my first!!!) on April 20, but took my time fishing them out of some limestone, then meticulously cleaning and prepping them. Thanks to Clear Lake for suggesting, in my first post that it looks similar to Ozawainella ciscoensis-really appreciate it! They were all found in winterset limestone in Kansas City. Researching numerous references, I found it is far more complicated identifying them, so I'll send them to someone with more expertise in i.d.s! , and am leaving them as simply Foraminifera. I i.d. them under a dissecting scope, then used 30 gauge needles to loosen them with applications of vinegar, then washed them in alternating vinegar and water, then placed them on blue clay to make them stick in place. The best one has 4 views. Just received my digital microscope and love it!! So simple and easy to use! My previous post stated it measured 458um or so, but I used the wrong objective- all of these are 860-900um in diameter. I went ahead and placed them on the fossil of the month, only because I haven't seen a lot of images on them in the forum (though I'm still looking through  ).Thoughts and suggestions appreciated, and thanks for making me feel like a kid again! Hope you enjoy!- The beauty of some things simply cannot be appreciated unless you look closely!!!!  Bone

 

[Pemphix]

I'm sorry, but these blurry fotos are far away from being helpful to any classification of this foraminifera.

You may have a look here: Ann Holbourn, Andrew S. Henderson, Norman Macleod: Atlas of Benthic Foraminifera. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex 2013 

To give you an idea, how necessary even the smallest details are, have a look for example here: https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/issue1-2012technical-articles/118-271

 

[Spoons]

They almost look like tiny ammonites!

 

Side Note: Do we have any larval ammonite fossils?

[Bonehunter]

46 minutes ago, Pemphix said:

I'm sorry, but these blurry fotos are far away from being helpful to any classification of this foraminifera.

You may have a look here: Ann Holbourn, Andrew S. Henderson, Norman Macleod: Atlas of Benthic Foraminifera. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex 2013 

To give you an idea, how necessary even the smallest details are, have a look for example here: https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/issue1-2012technical-articles/118-271

 

Thanks!- yep still learning-that's why I am an amateur hobbyist  

[Bonehunter]

4 minutes ago, Bonehunter said:

Thanks!- yep still learning-that's why I am an amateur hobbyist  

.......and I don't have ready access to SEM, which definitely would help!  

[Bonehunter]

16 minutes ago, Spoons said:

They almost look like tiny ammonites!

 

Side Note: Do we have any larval ammonite fossils?

Thanks!! TOTALLY!- that's one thought I had -cool regardless!!

[Pemphix]

15 hours ago, Spoons said:

They almost look like tiny ammonites!

 

Side Note: Do we have any larval ammonite fossils?

No Sir, that's a (benthic) foraminifera, not an larval ammonite.