Jump to content
JamieLynn

Eocene Shells ID - Whiskey Bridge Tx

Recommended Posts

JamieLynn

(Edited to correct ID's thanks to JKFoam and Hot Sauce Committee) Howdy! Had a great haul at the Eocene Stone City Bluff Formation . I am working on ID'ing my finds and am pretty happy with the 50 or so ID's I've figured out so far....but these are eluding me! Any help would be appreciated! 

 

These I think I have properly ID'd but would appreciate confirmation. All are 1/4 inch or smaller: 

 

Buccitriton possibly sagum

5ef8f9ba1ee64_Buccitritontexanum(1).thumb.jpg.0b87c38aafd3324af96616f3fcafff03.jpg

 

 

Gegania antiquata

5ef8fa8d6c030_shape6(4).thumb.jpg.71041606a07f4706f2c968be7c442d2a.jpg

 

 

Eodrillia texana

5ef8f9ba9b66f_Eodrilliatexana(2).thumb.jpg.0a6f0e8fde92414dfcf262d06ea8b55e.jpg

 

 

 

Eucheilodon reticulata

5ef8f9bb562de_Eucheilodonreticulata.thumb.jpg.87cfdc97095da489ddb34eb8fa85d58b.jpg

 

I can't decide is this is Awateria retifera or the next one is or they both are.  And what is the other one if they are not the same? 

(Edit:: Both are Buccitriton)

5ef8fa8caa941_shape6(2).thumb.jpg.abcb04d3a25404959da7ef895e5c86bb.jpg

 

5ef9025202e27_Awateriaretifera(2).thumb.jpg.d603c6647d93ac78df6a8aab1cbc041f.jpg

 

 

These I am not sure about ID.  All are 1/2 inch and smaller

1.  Looks similar to Hastula houstonia but has an extra decorated ring inbetween sections

5ef8fa85d7a37_Shape1(3).thumb.jpg.29d5b1a3dc9cafcec64b67f753fe91c4.jpg

 

2. This one I have no idea

5ef8fa8663e98_Shape1(5).thumb.jpg.0788ac47bd1b4057d08369fae379e05c.jpg

 

3. Looks similar to Michela trabeatoides, but not quite.... (Edit - Juvenile Michela)

5ef8fa86c68a5_shape2(1).thumb.jpg.30e1c9f40ab5ade06d08a27d08b712be.jpg

 

4.  Similar to Hesperiturris nodocarinatus but  has a second plain "ring" in between decorated rings.  (Edit: Hesperiturris amichel)

 

5ef8fa8828e3f_shape3(1).thumb.jpg.764ed237bf77e484aba7924fb3e2e25d.jpg

 

5. Similar to  Cochlesiopsis engonata, but is more compact, perhaps just a variation?

(Edit - is Cochlesiopsis engonata)

5ef8fa88c7cb1_shape4(1).thumb.jpg.2bc1b9ba74418b8d09945090ceeb20ff.jpg

 

6. Similar to the above, but with crenulated edges (Edit - is Cochlesiopsis engonata)

5ef8fa8983088_shape4(2).thumb.jpg.ce34ede490032e4fcca7075e62659805.jpg

 

8. Also similar to Hesperiturris nodocarinatus which it might be....

5ef8fa8a26e39_shape4(4).thumb.jpg.5fb3af333745d70e5874a76f2a15c508.jpg

 

9. Similar to Athleta petrosus but with more prominent horizontal bands and longer "tail" ? (Edit: is Papillina dumosa )

5ef8fa8b5746c_shape4.thumb.jpg.5d62d61d70d87cd4cd959a60b8e81110.jpg

 

10. SImilar to Buccitriton but has an extra whorl with decor... (Edit: is Buccitriton)

5ef8fa8bd83ae_shape6(1).thumb.jpg.fd41857f889ab80f84eff0e96ffe6956.jpg

 

 

 

11. Have no idea on this one.  (Edit: is Pseudoliva vetusta linosa )

 

5ef8fa8e1d706_shape6(6).thumb.jpg.11abb673b8d7ace8a6fc79df662dde44.jpg

 

 

Thanks for looking! 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

Nice collection. Can't help with names but I did want to say Gigania antiquata is an odd name for something less than .25 inches long!! I am not sure if @MikeR is familiar with this formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamieLynn
25 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

Nice collection. Can't help with names but I did want to say Gigania antiquata is an odd name for something less than .25 inches long!! I am not sure if @MikeR is familiar with this formation.

 

Right?? hahahha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HotSauceCommittee

Oooooh you got some pretty ones! I found a single #9 myself and Chuck Thompson ID'ed it for me as Papillina dumosa. I think that's the only one I can definitively help with.

The one you have as Buccitriton texaum looks less enlonogated than the Buccitriton that I have, although I don't have a species for mine. I used this TFF comment from @jkfoam to ID it. The second one you have under "Awateria retifera" is what I have as Buccitriton. I could certainly be wrong, but it does look like the one referenced in the link above.


I have the same ID for Gigania antiquata as you do. All the others are new to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamieLynn
45 minutes ago, HotSauceCommittee said:

Oooooh you got some pretty ones! I found a single #9 myself and Chuck Thompson ID'ed it for me as Papillina dumosa. I think that's the only one I can definitively help with.

The one you have as Buccitriton texaum looks less enlonogated than the Buccitriton that I have, although I don't have a species for mine. I used this TFF comment from @jkfoam to ID it. The second one you have under "Awateria retifera" is what I have as Buccitriton. I could certainly be wrong, but it does look like the one referenced in the link above.


I have the same ID for Gigania antiquata as you do. All the others are new to me!

 

Thanks!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamieLynn

@jkfoam - THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Greatly appreciate your knowledge and time spent to help out us amateurs! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HotSauceCommittee
2 hours ago, jkfoam said:

 

 

One of the problems with ID'ing fossils from the Stone City Bluff (Whiskey Bridge) is that fossils found below Mosley's Limestone are Stone City Formation and the fossils found above the Limestone are Cook Mountain Formation.  A few fossils are unique to each formation and some may only be slightly different.  Also there are so many fossils at the site that with time and effort you can do growth series of some of the more abundant species and study their growth habit and appearance.

 

Great fossils, thanks for posting them.

 

Jim

I don't mean to hijack JamieLynn's post, but I was wondering if you could clarify a bit about the formations. I've seen it referred to elsewhere as the Crockett formation (I think it was the Houston Gem & Mineral Society field trip hand out or something; I can't quite remember), but that would be incorrect then? I don't typically post exact locations when I share photos of my own finds, but I do note the formation and I'd like to be accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DPS Ammonite
1 hour ago, HotSauceCommittee said:

I don't mean to hijack JamieLynn's post, but I was wondering if you could clarify a bit about the formations. I've seen it referred to elsewhere as the Crockett formation (I think it was the Houston Gem & Mineral Society field trip hand out or something; I can't quite remember), but that would be incorrect then? I don't typically post exact locations when I share photos of my own finds, but I do note the formation and I'd like to be accurate. 

Try searching the names of rock units such as Moseley (correct name), Cook Mountain etc plus the name Geolex. Geolex is a good way to find summaries about and important papers about rock units.


https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/CookMountainRefs_1206.html

 

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/LittleBrazosRefs_13494.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkfoam
3 hours ago, HotSauceCommittee said:

I don't mean to hijack JamieLynn's post, but I was wondering if you could clarify a bit about the formations. I've seen it referred to elsewhere as the Crockett formation (I think it was the Houston Gem & Mineral Society field trip hand out or something; I can't quite remember), but that would be incorrect then? I don't typically post exact locations when I share photos of my own finds, but I do note the formation and I'd like to be accurate. 

 

 

I wish I understood more about stratigraphy but I'm a pure amateur so I'm not going to wade too deep in to these waters.  As I understand it H.B. Stenzel defined the Stone City formation in his 1957 publication, "Pelecypoda from the Type Locality of the Stone City Beds (Middle Eocene) of Texas".  Prior to that date the location was referred to as Crockett formation.  Subsequent to that date many authors used Stone City formations in their stratigraphic discussions including D.T. Dockery, L.D. Toumlin, K. Hodgekinson.  Not everyone accepted the Stone City formation designation and now I understand its use is in somewhat disfavor.  When I was learning about fossils the people providing me guidance used the Stone City formation designation and now being an old dog I still do.  The good news is that if you use Crockett formation or Stone City formation people will know where you are stratigraphically.  Fortunately for everyone I'm not going to be publishing any scientific papers.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DPS Ammonite
Posted (edited)

I did a “quick” review of literature. Most say that the Crockett Formation contains the Stone City Member at Stone City Bluff. The Moseley Bed is part of the Stone City Member. The Cook Mountain Formation is not a favored name and is not much used in the area. Use the HGS 2015 publication. I believe that Chris Flis is a TFF Member. @dinodigger
 

Flis, James E. and Christopher J. Flis. 2015. Stone City Member, Middle Eocene, Claiborne Group, Stone City Bluff, Burleson Co., Texas, Main Glauconite Bed (MGB) Study Guide, Houston Geological Society.

https://www.hgs.org/sites/default/files/MGB_FLIS_2_23_15.pdf

 

 

Hill, BENJAMIN  2016. MINERALOGY OF THE MOSELEY BED, MIDDLE EOCENE, TEXAS
An Undergraduate Research Scholars Thesis.Texas A&M University. May 2016
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79653519.pdf

Edited by DPS Ammonite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HotSauceCommittee
12 hours ago, jkfoam said:

I wish I understood more about stratigraphy but I'm a pure amateur so I'm not going to wade too deep in to these waters.  As I understand it H.B. Stenzel defined the Stone City formation in his 1957 publication, "Pelecypoda from the Type Locality of the Stone City Beds (Middle Eocene) of Texas".  Prior to that date the location was referred to as Crockett formation.  Subsequent to that date many authors used Stone City formations in their stratigraphic discussions including D.T. Dockery, L.D. Toumlin, K. Hodgekinson.  Not everyone accepted the Stone City formation designation and now I understand its use is in somewhat disfavor.  When I was learning about fossils the people providing me guidance used the Stone City formation designation and now being an old dog I still do.  The good news is that if you use Crockett formation or Stone City formation people will know where you are stratigraphically.  Fortunately for everyone I'm not going to be publishing any scientific papers.

 

Jim

 

8 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

I did a “quick” review of literature. Most say that the Crockett Formation contains the Stone City Member at Stone City Bluff. The Moseley Bed is part of the Stone City Member. The Cook Mountain Formation is not a favored name and is not much used in the area. Use the HGS 2015 publication. I believe that Chris Flis is a TFF Member. @dinodigger
 

Flis, James E. and Christopher J. Flis. 2015. Stone City Member, Middle Eocene, Claiborne Group, Stone City Bluff, Burleson Co., Texas, Main Glauconite Bed (MGB) Study Guide, Houston Geological Society.

https://www.hgs.org/sites/default/files/MGB_FLIS_2_23_15.pdf

 

 

Hill, BENJAMIN  2016. MINERALOGY OF THE MOSELEY BED, MIDDLE EOCENE, TEXAS
An Undergraduate Research Scholars Thesis.Texas A&M University. May 2016
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79653519.pdf

 

Thank you both for this. That actually clarified things for me quite a bit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ClearLake

@JamieLynnAs I mentioned in your other, related thread, very nice fossils and pictures and I think most of your ID's are spot on.  One I have some question about is the Eucheilodon reticulata shown in the fourth picture.  While we really need to see the aperture to be certain (and maybe you or others have looked at this already and confirmed the current ID) but if it is truly Eucheilodon reticulata, we should see some bead like teeth on the inner lip (although even the original authors of the species mentioned that these are often absent).  I believe that absent these bumps, the better ID for this is an embryonic Protosurcula gabbi.  I have attached a picture which I hope helps explain why I think this.  The nuclear whorls of a gastropod can be very diagnostic in identifying the species and sometimes serve as a main diagnostic tool between adult shells that look similar.  In this case, the adults of the two species in question don't look anything alike, but the shell is question is almost certainly not an adult.  The original descriptions of the species by Gabb (1860) for Eucheilodon and Conrad (1865) for Protosurcula were both summarized, discussed and illustrated in Harris (1937) Turrid Illustrations in vol.2 of Palaeontographic Americana from which I have copied a couple of pictures.  The 2001 Emerson publication also describes Protosurcula very nicely, but unfortunately does not have Eucheilodon illustrated.

 

If you overlay the shape of Protosurcula onto your specimen, it matches very well.  The illustration of Eucheilodon gives a shape that is slightly different for the early whorls.  What I think is more critical is the description of the pattern of the nucleus and early whorls.  What is described for Protosurcula (timing of longitudinal ribbing and early spiral lines) is, I believe, exactly what we see in your specimen.  The description given for Eucheilodon reticulata is different from what we see primarily in the number of whorls with longitudinal ribbing (one, by themselves) and the onset of spiral lines which are supposed to dominate the longitudinal ribbing after that.

 

Based on all this, I believe you have an embryonic Protosurcula gabbi, just prior to the beginning of the adult whorls.  But I sure would love to see a picture of the aperture side to confirm/destroy this suggestion.  I have a couple specimens in my collection that look very similar to what you have (or at least what I can see in the one picture) that I have cataloged as Protosurcula, in part because as I look at the whole growth series, that is where they seem to fit the best.

 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamieLynn

@ClearLake -  i think you are spot on. Also, I can see how the aperture opening on Euchilodon is wider and fuller than the Protosurcula. Unfortunately, the outer lip is broken on that one particular fossil. Here is another one which I think might also be broken a little, but it for sure does not have the "teeth" . Thank you for your time and knowledge! 

 

 

200711162211325.thumb.jpg.495f0209029fb11b2cf8f706ea01791f.jpg

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.

×