Jump to content
Wrangellian

Collecting the Stages

Recommended Posts

jpc

Very nice.  I comletely forgot that I had sent you some stuff.  Glad it has a nice home.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
7 hours ago, MikeR said:

 

Cool concept.

 

The North American Stages on your chart through the Cenozoic are the North American Land Mammal Stages.  There are also different European Land Mammal Stages.  Below is the latest official time scale from the International Committee on Stratigraphy LINK which is updated twice a year.  All other stages are considered regional stages and typically a Google search can tell you where the local stages are on the chart.

 

Mike

 

 

Thanks, yes I know that much, that's where I get my data for my own scale:

I do find it difficult even with google to find certain things. Lately I tried finding the current correlations for the Permian with the European divisions against the Global ones, but came up empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad
13 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

 

I do find it difficult even with google to find certain things. Lately I tried finding the current correlations for the Permian with the European divisions against the Global ones, but came up empty.

This may help a tad :

https://www.britannica.com/science/Permian-Period/Major-boundaries-and-subdivisions-of-the-Permian-System

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
2 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Thanks... a tad, yes, but still some missing, such as the Dzhulfian. I really need a chart of the quality (conciseness) of the Cambrian, Ordovician and Carboniferous charts you can find at the ICS website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
13 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Very nice indeed. :)

Love the Tabulipora, Conularia and the Rhynie chert piece in particular. 

And nice to see a few brachs in there. 

Eagerly awaiting your older specimens. :popcorn:

 

It's nice to have variety... For most stages I had to use what I've got, but I would not like to omit a whole phylum that is so well-represented in the fossil record like the Brachiopods. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

OK, the ORDOVICIAN:

 

UPPER:

Katian:

From Monica

Katian.thumb.jpg.bdbe83f5a7031eb4183f0e86d92b13ce.jpg

 

Sandbian:

Sandbian.thumb.jpg.48bc768dab2022da8d61ab42f7e03ea5.jpg

Another Sandbian (from Sophie):

Sandbian(2).thumb.jpg.8bd33c04626a2471b62b9c70e3f45a84.jpg

 

The North American stages are well-developed for the Ordovician, so of course I've got a few -

Maysvillian:

Maysvillian.jpg.fa5d8b7692a84b1628a7223a1aa62f52.jpg

 

Richmondian:

From 'minnbuckeye' Mike

Richmondian.thumb.jpg.fa77d516d551fe75f0bd9e2cffcc1957.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

One that came with a N.A. stage, the Blackriveran:

Blackriveran.thumb.jpg.ebe4f8541225b45b290ec3193a42f062.jpg

 

ORDOVICIAN, MIDDLE & LOWER:

 

Darriwillian:

Darriwillian.thumb.jpg.1716c8285c7d902d7c1b0c57304e0e15.jpg

 

Floian:

Bought this one online and then learned that it had some reconstruction. Bit of a buying regret, but I don't think I paid a lot for it, so no big deal!

Also it is not quite so orange in real life :wacko:.

Floian.jpg.3dcb4f94fddb49fe20aae87c4e348a5c.jpg

 

And a N.A. stage, the Blackhillsian (I think), which equates to the upper Floian:

Blackhillsian.thumb.jpg.47b446430eb98f9d2fb1602134b83ad8.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

CAMBRIAN:

FURONGIAN (UPPER):

 

Stage 10 (I'm deducing that the expression 'Late Furongian' means Stage 10):

This should also qualify it for the Trempealeauan and I guess the Sunwaptan on the N.A. chart (if not the Lowermost Ordovician which in the N.A. scheme dips down a little further than the Global boundary).

Stage10.thumb.jpg.6b208072817ebce9795d0a5a7211e33f.jpg

 

Paibian, which should also qualify as Steptoean and Dresbachian:

This one from (I think) Ralph via Monica.

Paibian.jpg.5e85fdc546a47008744b0cffd225e1cc.jpg

 

One that came to me as 'Upper Steptoean' - that could mean Jiangshanian on the Global scale but I wouldn't count on it, so I guess I'm still lacking a Jiangshanian fossil:

Steptoean.thumb.jpg.d48a946b28167e8d896e5d7e64f8c514.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

MIAOLINGIAN (MIDDLE CAMBRIAN):

 

Many of the Middle Cambrian fossils come from western North America with info stated in N.A. stages or formations. I still have trouble sorting out which formation equates to what stage. From what I can tell, the Wheeler Shale spans the Wuliuan-Drumian or the Topazan-Marjuman boundary, and the Spence Shale spans the Delamaran-Topazan, and as you can see on my chart the Marjuman stage spans the Drumian-Guzhangian, so in some cases it's tricky attributing fossils from those formations to a particular stage, without more research. But I gather the Marjum Fm is mostly Drumian, the Wheeler mostly Wuliuan/Topazan, and the Spence Wuliuan/Delamaran, so I could make those assumptions for now, and change it later if/when I learn differently.

 

Marjuman (Drumian?):

Marjuman.thumb.jpg.c688a5ef836a4fe054ceb76a3bcff0b5.jpg

 

Wuliuan/Topazan?:

5ec9e8b2c876d_Topazan(b)x80pc.jpg.a1b8603a8e66c8978e5af0b939195d43.jpg

 

Wuliuan/Delamaran?:

Wuliuan.thumb.jpg.8b54b6e5c5bd939df7fae4c6d90556d1.jpg

 

And I can't not include this one for the Wuliuan/Delamaran (apparently the Spence and Burgess are essentially contemporary):

(This is the one I bought in a bargain bin from a dealer at a rock/hobby show in Victoria years ago, in case anyone is wondering.)

Delamaran.thumb.jpg.bbbf691bf2abd76a9675c111d6e54425.jpg5ec9e936bd038_Delamaran(det).jpg.efca892e170087079bb899509565c28d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

TERRENEUVIAN+SERIES 2 (LOWER CAMBRIAN):

 

Stage 3 (Atdabanian?):

Stage3(Atdabanian).thumb.jpg.d0175372e191a6eceddd2733fd4798c3.jpg

 

Dyeran of the N.A. scale (right around the boundary of the Global Stage 3 and Stage 4, so I can't make a call there):

Dyeran.jpg.294fa57e705fbb5cca523912158e3929.jpg

 

Now this one came to me as right around the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary, so it could be Fortunian, otherwise I have no fossils from the Fortunian. That's going to be a tricky one to get, I suspect.

Naman-Fortunian.thumb.jpg.31d4feaaa07566cf9181ea12956842c4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

I may as well include the Precambrian, even though it's not (yet) divided into stages. If I can anticipate an Avalonian/White Sea/Naman setup for the Upper Ediacaran, I can say I have something from two of those:

 

White Sea:

WhiteSea.thumb.jpg.e0e7edfc508367f61f76e613a19d306c.jpg

 

Naman:

This one may not be a fossil - the thinking seems to be that they are just bubbles though they have been long on the market as Ediacaran organisms, but it's the only thing I've got from that 'stage':

Naman.thumb.jpg.084ad15f78b7c916b0ca3aa105e8c6d4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Earlier PRECAMBRIAN:

The Precambrian is so far only divided into periods in the Proterozoic and eras below that, and these are only defined by more-or-less arbitrary round dates rather than any stratigraphic definition (though these could come in the future and the current scheme could be reorganized considerably) but for now, just for fun, and for comprehensiveness, I wanted to see which periods/systems I had in my collection. For the span of time, it's not a lot, of course. All stromatolites, of course (until I score a Horodyskia).

 

1.4 billion puts this one at the Calymmian-Ectasian boundary, but the literature I've read seems to indicate that it's a little older than 1.4, so that would be Calymmian:

Stromatolite self-collected in the Kootenay Region of B.C. last summer. Purcell Supergroup (=Belt Sg. south of the border), not sure of formation.

Calymmian.jpg.efadeae84e78672c4f9f88c7af37507c.jpg

 

1.7 billion years puts this one in the Statherian:

Statherian.jpg.4eec4529c6e0ef641be2d9dfc71b518b.jpg

 

2.2-2.4 b.y. spans the Siderian-Rhyacian. If I could narrow down the age for this piece of the famous Mary Ellen stromatolite, I could put it in one or the other. More research.

5ec9ee33411a8_SiderianorRhyacian.jpg.1754de5ae98b3259500c2d6d08da07a9.jpg

 

2.45 b.y. puts this in in the Siderian:

(Not sure if this is stromatolite/bacterial mat-type thing or just varves)

Siderian.thumb.jpg.eaf980b9722d8e05cf540589e7694177.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

There, done... for now.  If anyone notices any mistakes, or if they can confirm any of my uncertainties, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know.

Thanks to everyone for the comments so far and yet to come, and thanks to those who have supplied me with fossils via sales, trades or just sent them to me out of sheer generosity without expecting anything in return!

As I acquire new fossils that fill in the gaps that I'm missing, I'll post them here along with an updated chart with the gap filled in.

 

Yes, it's a long-term ambitious project, but it has been in the works since I started collecting fossils as a kid, whether I realized it or not. I figure it's going to be a bit like those old sticker books you could get in the 1980s where you could quickly fill in most of the spaces with each new sticker pack you buy, but the last few would be elusive (until you broke down and ordered them directly from the company). Some stages will be tricky to get and I may never get a few of them, but I don't need more than one fossil for each and it doesn't have to be a particularly spectacular one, it just has to have accurate stratigraphic data with it.

If anyone else is thinking of doing a similar thing, I could perhaps supply for you a Santonian fossil from my local site, though it might only be a bivalve or something like that (as I said, the idea is just to have a fossil, any fossil, from that stage), but if you're in Europe I think you have access to good Santonian material over there, such as those nice Spanish corals, echinoids, etc. Here in North America I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
17 hours ago, deutscheben said:

What a wonderful idea, and a really concrete way to explore geological time. Also, it shows you have a very diverse and deep collection- and there are some really beauties in there! I can't wait to see the rest. 

Yes, a good way for me to reacquaint myself with the finer details of the scale - Even after I went through all the trouble of drawing up my Proportional Time Scale I still couldn't tell you offhand whether the Toarcian was part of the Upper or Lower Jurassic! (pretty sure it wasn't part of the Middle).

17 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Very cool! I’m trying to collect fossils from every time period represented in Maryland. Oligocene, Pleistocene, Cambrian, and Ordovician left.

Sounds like you have quite a few represented in that small state. Which ones have you got already?

17 hours ago, Uncle Siphuncle said:

Representing every stage is very ambitious.  The best I have done is representing every period of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, and each epoch of the Cenozoic, all self collected.  I think it would be fun to collect every stage on Vancouver Island, as there is great variety snd wonderful preservation there.

Well you're doing it by self-collecting, so that makes it harder. I'm not restricting myself to self-collected material otherwise I'd only have about 4 or 5 of them so far!

There aren't very many stages represented here on the island and I'm not entirely sure what all is here, but I still don't have them all. Still lacking the Coniacian but I know there is some up-island.

17 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

Great project! You've inspired me to check out my own collection in this respect. I've got quite a bit, but Precambrium is practically a blank for me.

Keep us apprised of your progress! You've probably got many of the Mesozoic stages that I'm still lacking, and I assume mostly self-collected which is nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
13 hours ago, jpc said:

Very nice.  I comletely forgot that I had sent you some stuff.  Glad it has a nice home.  

Yes, and thanks again for that, otherwise I don't think I have any Maastrichtian ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia
23 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

 Keep us apprised of your progress! You've probably got many of the Mesozoic stages that I'm still lacking, and I assume mostly self-collected which is nice.

I took the time to have a closer look yesterday and noticed quickly that I'm doing well when it comes to collecting the Epochs, but I have a lot more gaps in the stages than I had originally thought, particularly in the Quaternary, Neogene, Permian, Silurian and Cambrian. And the Proterozoic is another story in itself of course. You're right about my Mesozoic though. Just missing the early Triassic stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

I took the time to have a closer look yesterday and noticed quickly that I'm doing well when it comes to collecting the Epochs, but I have a lot more gaps in the stages than I had originally thought, particularly in the Quaternary, Neogene, Permian, Silurian and Cambrian. And the Proterozoic is another story in itself of course. You're right about my Mesozoic though. Just missing the early Triassic stages.

That sounds pretty good... Those are most of the areas I'm weak in too, except the Cambrian is not so bad but add the Triassic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
7 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Sounds like you have quite a few represented in that small state. Which ones have you got already?

Indeed, Maryland is nicknamed “Little America.” :)

I have found fossils in Maryland’s devonian, Silurian, Carboniferous, Triassic, Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, and Miocene. I forgot, there’s also some Permian I would like to fossil hunt someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tidgy's Dad

Lovely stuff, Eric, thanks for sharing these with us. :)

I think I must try to get a brachiopod from each stage. (which excludes Pre-Cambrian at least!) 

Interesting project. 

Oh, and I have my Mary Ellen Mine  Collenia down as 2.11 billion years old, but can't remember where I got that age from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

Hi Eric,

 

Nice thread.  You have an amazing collecting!

 

One possible correction I noticed concerns the edrioasteroid you have labeled (with a query) as Isorophusella incondita.  If it is indeed from near Cincinnati it is much more likely to be Isorophus cincinnatiensisIsorophusella does not occur (as far as I know anyway) in the Cincinnati area.  Also it is rare (but not unheard of) to find Isorophusella attached to a Rafinesquina, instead they occur on hardground surfaces.  On the other hand Isorophus is virtually always found on Rafinesquina.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DPS Ammonite

Eric, I really like the idea of displaying fossils organized by time.

 

You need to use the stratigraphic terms that emphasize age and time when referring to fossils: Eon; Era; Period; Epoch and Age. On your ID cards you should actually use the Age (along with early and late) of a fossil to the right of “Age” preprinted on the card. We use the same terms in Collections on the Forum. By tradition and convention, fossils are from Ages and use the associated terms early and late. 
 

Also on your labels, early and late are capitalized when they are part of the official name in the ICS chart. Use lower case if use is informal. It is late Ediacaran and not Late Ediacaran. It is however, Late Cretaceous.

 

The terms Eon, Era, Period, Epoch and Age emphasize the time and age qualities of fossils and are related to days of the week and decades. You say late 70s, late Albian or late Tuesday, and not upper 70s, upper Albian or upper Tuesday. 

 

In contrast, the terms Eanothem, Erathem, System, Series and Stage  refer to the relative positions of rock units such as formations and members. They are sort of like stories in a building; you use the terms upper and lower. 

 

See these excellent references:

 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/20660964.pdf

 

and a guide from Stratigraphy.org:

 

https://stratigraphy.org/guide

8481F741-0CC0-4E10-82E8-08179A766796.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
5 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

Hi Eric,

Nice thread.  You have an amazing collecting!

One possible correction I noticed concerns the edrioasteroid you have labeled (with a query) as Isorophusella incondita.  If it is indeed from near Cincinnati it is much more likely to be Isorophus cincinnatiensisIsorophusella does not occur (as far as I know anyway) in the Cincinnati area.  Also it is rare (but not unheard of) to find Isorophusella attached to a Rafinesquina, instead they occur on hardground surfaces.  On the other hand Isorophus is virtually always found on Rafinesquina.

Thanks Don, I'll take your word for it (as I took the seller's word for it) and have corrected the label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
6 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Eric, I really like the idea of displaying fossils organized by time.

 

You need to use the stratigraphic terms that emphasize age and time when referring to fossils: Eon; Era; Period; Epoch and Age. On your ID cards you should actually use the Age (along with early and late) of a fossil to the right of “Age” preprinted on the card. We use the same terms in Collections on the Forum. By tradition and convention, fossils are from Ages and use the associated terms early and late. 
 

Also on your labels, early and late are capitalized when they are part of the official name in the ICS chart. Use lower case if use is informal. It is late Ediacaran and not Late Ediacaran. It is however, Late Cretaceous.

 

The terms Eon, Era, Period, Epoch and Age emphasize the time and age qualities of fossils and are related to days of the week and decades. You say late 70s, late Albian or late Tuesday, and not upper 70s, upper Albian or upper Tuesday. 

 

In contrast, the terms Eanothem, Erathem, System, Series and Stage  refer to the relative positions of rock units such as formations and members. They are sort of like stories in a building; you use the terms upper and lower.

You're right, I've been sloppy with my usage on the labels. Some of the labels I've received from other people also use 'Upper' and 'Lower' too (though not necessarily with the word 'Age'), and that may have contributed to it.

But I was unaware that the labels in a person's collection should be the age and not stage - I guess I've always thought of the fossil as coming from the formation that is also stated on the label... as in, this fossil came out of the Haslam Formation of the Santonian Stage. Of course whichever usage you adhere to should be consistent. I was not unaware of the difference between age and stage, or upper and late, just been sloppy on the labels. I would describe a prehistoric event as happening during the Santonian Age, or if someone asked me "how old is that fossil" I might say Santonian age, though they might understand "85 million years" better.

Oh well, I did say I had to redo my labels someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
connorp
On 5/23/2020 at 11:42 PM, Wrangellian said:

This one may not be a fossil - the thinking seems to be that they are just bubbles though they have been long on the market as Ediacaran organisms, but it's the only thing I've got from that 'stage':

Naman.thumb.jpg.084ad15f78b7c916b0ca3aa105e8c6d4.jpg

I have always been convinced these are just weathered sandstone :unsure: Some of the more complex ones might be fossils, but I don't think Namacalathus is correct.

 

Very nice collection though, that Burgess brachiopod is spectacular. Been on the lookout for one for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian
15 minutes ago, connorp said:

I have always been convinced these are just weathered sandstone :unsure: Some of the more complex ones might be fossils, but I don't think Namacalathus is correct.

 

Very nice collection though, that Burgess brachiopod is spectacular. Been on the lookout for one for a while.

Thanks Connor. I think you're right.. If it is a fossil (and there are lots of simple disc-like things from the Ediacaran that are doubtlessly organic), I doubt Namacalathus too, which is why I didn't mention it even though the seller called it that. But I guess it's more likely to be something geological/mineralogical, I just don't know enough to make a judgement on that. To me it doesn't seem like simple weathering, though; I think there must have been something in there that weathered out, if it didn't start out as a bubble.

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.

×