My first 2 trilobites (and fossils)

[Pavlosmelas]

Hi All,

 

I have recently started my fossil collection, I am still figuring out what I really enjoy and what fits in my budget, but atleast trilobites really got my interest. I have some experience in collecting in general and I decided to buy nice specimens, especially for the common trilobites, rather than starting off with less preserved ones and having to upgrade them in the future.

 

I want to share my first two trilobites:

If anyone has any opinions and information about them, please do not hesitate to do so! My knowledge is still small in the fossil world.

 

This one was sold as a Morocops Granulops (Devonian), excavated in Jbel Zguilma Marocco.

 

 

The second one is a Asaphus lepidurus (Middle Ordovician), excavated in the Putilovo quarry Russia.

 

 

 

 

[FranzBernhard]

Welcome to TFF from Austria!

 

58 minutes ago, Pavlosmelas said:

I decided to buy nice specimens

Here we can see that you are indeed experienced in collecting, that´s the way to go, as you already know. I can not speak for myself, though, as I only self collect.

 

You have really nice specimens there, but I can not judge them in terms of authenticity, but I "think" they are both real. And with an outstanding exquisite prep, if indeed real.

 

I am just a little bit wondering about the matrix of the second specimen. Is this the usual matrix for this site?

 

Enjoy TFF, many knowledgeable and friendly members here!

Franz Bernhard

[Fossildude19]

Moved to MEMBERS COLLECTIONS.  

[Pavlosmelas]

3 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

Welcome to TFF from Austria!

 

Here we can see that you are indeed experienced in collecting, that´s the way to go, as you already know. I can not speak for myself, though, as I only self collect.

 

You have really nice specimens there, but I can not judge them in terms of authenticity, but I "think" they are both real. And with an outstanding exquisite prep, if indeed real.

 

I am just a little bit wondering about the matrix of the second specimen. Is this the usual matrix for this site?

 

Enjoy TFF, many knowledgeable and friendly members here!

Franz Bernhard

Thank you Franz for your response! The first one is definitely real since I bought that one from a reputable seller. The second one should be real as well but it is always great if somebody can confirm it to be sure. I am not sure regarding the matrix, I have seen several other examples that were placed on the same kind of matrix, but that ofcourse does not say anything.

I look forward spending some time at TFF!

 

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Moved t MEMBERS COLLECTIONS.  

Thanks, sorry for that.

[Notidanodon]

4 hours ago, Pavlosmelas said:

Thank you Franz for your response! The first one is definitely real since I bought that one from a reputable seller. The second one should be real as well but it is always great if somebody can confirm it to be sure. I am not sure regarding the matrix, I have seen several other examples that were placed on the same kind of matrix, but that ofcourse does not say anything.

I look forward spending some time at TFF!

 

Thanks, sorry for that.

Hi, great first buys, for the 2nd, russian trilobite that is what they look like, if im correct, one of the sites is on a river which is why the edges are rounded/eroded, to me it looks authentic but i am not a specialist, even if there is a tiny bit of restoration which is common on the russian bugs, it is very minimal

[Kane]

The matrix is real. I've prepared many of these. 

[Malcolmt]

Both look real to me.

 

[FossilDAWG]

Both look real to me too.  Real nice, that is!

 

Don

[Huntonia]

They both look genuine and quite nice to me. The Russian trilobite may have some minimal restoration as the vast majority of them on the market do. I would suggest you purchase a UV light which should help in revealing which areas may be restored. Here's what a typical restoration looks like under a UV light

[Pavlosmelas]

Thank you all for the nice comments and confirming the originality of the bugs! I have been looking at fish/amphibian/crustacean fossils as well, they are nice. I have ordered a nice example of the Knightia already to have a start in those, they are very cheap and I think many of you in the states can pick these up personally. I am from the Europe so I must import them .

 

13 hours ago, Kane said:

The matrix is real. I've prepared many of these. 

Very nice blog, I enjoy seeing your trilobite examples. 

 

10 hours ago, Huntonia said:

They both look genuine and quite nice to me. The Russian trilobite may have some minimal restoration as the vast majority of them on the market do. I would suggest you purchase a UV light which should help in revealing which areas may be restored. Here's what a typical restoration looks like under a UV light

Thank you for your advice, I have ordered a UV 365nm light. The seller said the fossil has 2% restoration.

[Pavlosmelas]

The Morocops Granulops I have is also listed as Barrandeops granulops, anyone has any idea what the correct genus is? And why are there two?

[Ludwigia]

22 minutes ago, Pavlosmelas said:

The Morocops Granulops I have is also listed as Barrandeops granulops, anyone has any idea what the correct genus is? And why are there two?

As far as I understand this paper, Barrandeops is recognized as a so-called junior synonym to Morocops, due to close morphological similarities within the diverse variations of both, which means that both names are currently correct until further taxonomic work is able to clearly separate the two genera.

[FossilDAWG]

Actually, a junior synonym is an invalid name and should be discarded in favor of the older name (senior synonym).  Taxonomic rules are clear that the first validly proposed name for a taxon is the only legitimate name. 

 

Don

[Pavlosmelas]

7 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

As far as I understand this paper, Barrandeops is recognized as a so-called junior synonym to Morocops, due to close morphological similarities within the diverse variations of both, which means that both names are currently correct until further taxonomic work is able to clearly separate the two genera.

 

1 hour ago, FossilDAWG said:

Actually, a junior synonym is an invalid name and should be discarded in favor of the older name (senior synonym).  Taxonomic rules are clear that the first validly proposed name for a taxon is the only legitimate name. 

 

Don

 

Thank you both for the answer! Then Morocops is the correct and senior synonym of the two? I learned something new regarding the taxonomic rules.

[FossilDAWG]

You should also be aware that issues such as whether or not two taxa are truly different is sometimes a matter of opinion.  For example, suppose someone describes what they think is a new species and gives it a name.  There is no central name repository that somehow instantly makes that new name legitimate.  Rather, the paleontological community of sort of "votes" based on whether or not they reference the new name in their publications.  If most paleontologists who do research on that sort of fossil treat the new species as valid, for example by including it in taxonomic analysis studies or by comparing their own new species to it, then over time the new species comes to be "accepted".  On the other hand after a name is published paleontologists may voice an opinion that the new species is not really different from what had already been published.  They may argue that the new species (or genus) is a junior synonym.  A debate may follow, where people discuss whether or not specific features of the fossils (ideally the new species has more than one specimen) really differ as opposed to specimens being a bit different due to biological variation or taphonomic issues (maybe one specimen is a bit flattened so it looks a bit different for example).  Eventually one hopes a consensus will emerge.

 

Don

[Ludwigia]

11 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

You should also be aware that issues such as whether or not two taxa are truly different is sometimes a matter of opinion.  For example, suppose someone describes what they think is a new species and gives it a name.  There is no central name repository that somehow instantly makes that new name legitimate.  Rather, the paleontological community of sort of "votes" based on whether or not they reference the new name in their publications.  If most paleontologists who do research on that sort of fossil treat the new species as valid, for example by including it in taxonomic analysis studies or by comparing their own new species to it, then over time the new species comes to be "accepted".  On the other hand after a name is published paleontologists may voice an opinion that the new species is not really different from what had already been published.  They may argue that the new species (or genus) is a junior synonym.  A debate may follow, where people discuss whether or not specific features of the fossils (ideally the new species has more than one specimen) really differ as opposed to specimens being a bit different due to biological variation or taphonomic issues (maybe one specimen is a bit flattened so it looks a bit different for example).  Eventually one hopes a consensus will emerge.

 

Don

Well said. And that appears to be the stage at which these 2 names are still at.