JamieLynn Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (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 Gegania antiquata Eodrillia texana Eucheilodon reticulata 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) 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 2. This one I have no idea 3. Looks similar to Michela trabeatoides, but not quite.... (Edit - Juvenile Michela) 4. Similar to Hesperiturris nodocarinatus but has a second plain "ring" in between decorated rings. (Edit: Hesperiturris amichel) 5. Similar to Cochlesiopsis engonata, but is more compact, perhaps just a variation? (Edit - is Cochlesiopsis engonata) 6. Similar to the above, but with crenulated edges (Edit - is Cochlesiopsis engonata) 8. Also similar to Hesperiturris nodocarinatus which it might be.... 9. Similar to Athleta petrosus but with more prominent horizontal bands and longer "tail" ? (Edit: is Papillina dumosa ) 10. SImilar to Buccitriton but has an extra whorl with decor... (Edit: is Buccitriton) 11. Have no idea on this one. (Edit: is Pseudoliva vetusta linosa ) Thanks for looking! 2 www.fossil-quest.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnbuckeye Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieLynn Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 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 www.fossil-quest.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 @jkfoam @dinodigger 1 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotSauceCommittee Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 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! [ . . .] to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a former world, the mossy covering which obstructs his view, and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone, is no less than a serious subject of regret. - James Hutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieLynn Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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!!! www.fossil-quest.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkfoam Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 JamieLynn, Nice finds, I always enjoy seeing the Whiskey Bridge Eocene fossils. When it comes to identifying these fossils my first suggestion is to photograph the fossils with the aperture showing, as the aperture has several diagnostic features. The columella may have folds such as Athleta has, or the lips of the aperture may be dentated such as Distorsio, or the overall shape of the Aperture may be telling. The Gigania antiquata should be spelled Gegania antiquata. It could also be subspecies striata but that will require a further look. The Awateria retifera is not Awateria retifera but Buccitriton (can't tell sp., can't see aperture, the same as the earlier Buccitriton, No. 3, is Michela t. just at a young age. No. 4, I agree with your thinking. However your specimen is fatter than illustration references for that species. Please consider Hesperiturris amichel for your specimen. Refer to J. Gardner, 1945, "Mollusca of the Tertiary Formations of Northeastern Mexico". No. 5, No 6, Both are Cochlespiropsis engonata. No.8 Not a Hesperiturris I don't think. I believe it may be a very young Protosurcula gabbii which can grow to three inches long. Its hard to believe looking at a mature Protosurcula that they are the same but if you look at enough of them at different ages you will see it. No. 9 Not Athleta. It could be Papillina dumosa trapaquara, but needs more study. No. 10 Its a Buccitriton but can't tell species without a view of aperture. No. 11 This little follow is, I believe Pseudoliva vetusta linosa . Reference, Bulletins of American Paleontology, Vol 7, 1937, K.V.W. Palmer. 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 4 The Eocene is my favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieLynn Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 @jkfoam - THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Greatly appreciate your knowledge and time spent to help out us amateurs! www.fossil-quest.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotSauceCommittee Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 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. 1 [ . . .] to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a former world, the mossy covering which obstructs his view, and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone, is no less than a serious subject of regret. - James Hutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkfoam Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 1 The Eocene is my favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 (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 June 30, 2020 by DPS Ammonite 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotSauceCommittee Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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! [ . . .] to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a former world, the mossy covering which obstructs his view, and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone, is no less than a serious subject of regret. - James Hutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearLake Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 @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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieLynn Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 @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! www.fossil-quest.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Saunders Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 No.7 Aesperiturris noclocarinatus Eocene period mine are from, Claibone Fm. "formation" Stone City, Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now