Free1986 Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 I spent the day at a quarry in the Green River Formation, WY. I found this fossil (not sure if C. Liops or P. Serrata). I would have taken it home as is (was exactlywhat I hoped to find), but I was lucky enough to find a Mioplosus labracoides as well that ended up being on substrate much to thin to survive much transport. The quarry owner didn't want to take on preparatory work due to backlog of work, but agreed to back, seal and do very light prep on this piece. Since he was doing work and shipping it to me anyway, he recommended a light preparation/ restoration/ paint on the C. Liops (ID?) as well. I agreed, but am thinking about it again. The owner seems well respected with work in several major museums. If it were a piece that you were planning to display as wall art (and were a total amateur) what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 7 minutes ago, Free1986 said: (not sure if C. Liops or P. Serrata) What mean C. in C. liops and P. in P. serrata ? Only the name of the genus is written with a capital letter, not the name of the species (see the writing as I put it). You should always quote the genres at least at the beginning of your subject, because for the uninitiated people (like me in fishes) C. liops and P. in P. serrata don't speak... Coco 1 ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free1986 Posted September 13, 2021 Author Share Posted September 13, 2021 Sorry, I think it is Priscacara serrata or Cockerellites liops. Both are relatively common in this formation. The main question is how would people feel about a "restoration" for display? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 This one is your call. I prefer the natural look, prepared but not painted. I also quite like partial fossil. Nice fish by the way, 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 I agree with the natural look being best. I would pass on the paint. Painted fish can be bought anywhere. They are unique this way. These look great to me as they are. Just my 2 cents as a fish guy. 1 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombk Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 My thoughts: Both are beautiful specimens, made more so to you because you found them. It is fairly typical to second guess a decision of this sort. By “a decision of this sort,” I mean one where there isn’t really a right answer. I think I’d like to have a little prep work and a bit of something to make the fish “pop out” myself. In the end, there’s really no way to go wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Rico Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: They are unique this way I really like this as a way of viewing partial specimens, on my ammonite thread I have been saying about my my partial ammonites ‘to good not to keep’ but this much more fitting . Edited September 13, 2021 by Bobby Rico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 Its a night and day different look you would see following the owners advice or no paint and just a light prep. It depends what you really want to display and like, not what others like. Natural looking fish do not look as sexy and pop out as fully prepped ones why people do it. Either way it does not destroy what you found just how it looks. Its a personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnbuckeye Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 I , myself, would LIGHTLY stain the flawed areas just enough to darken it a shade deeper than the matrix. This lets your eye glance over the flawed spots yet doesn't look like a fully painted fish, which to me are distracting. Just another opinion!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptychodus04 Posted September 13, 2021 Share Posted September 13, 2021 @Free1986 It is impossible to positively identify this specimen using fin ray counts of the dorsal and anal fins (due to disarticulation), that's the easiest way to make the determination at first glance between the two options. Another is the edge of the operculum. Priscacara has an ornate edge where Cockerelites has a smoother edge. This little guy appears to have no ornamentation on the operculum so, I would say that it is a Cockerelites liops. As @Troodon mentioned, restoration is all about what you want. I go both ways on the topic depending on the specimen. This one would fare well with some restoration IMHO. Nice find. 1 Regards, Kris Global Paleo Services, LLC https://globalpaleoservices.com http://instagram.com/globalpaleoservices http://instagram.com/kris.howe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free1986 Posted September 23, 2021 Author Share Posted September 23, 2021 In the end I decided to leave the Cockerelites totally natural since it is my first really nice find. @Ptychodus04 Thanks for your help. What are the fin ray counts for each of the species? (for my education) I think I may be able to count them in person, there isn't much disarticulation, the fin impressions are still visible even though the dark color is gone, but it didn't photograph well. Speaking of disarticulation, I was doing a little clean up on some of the pieces I brought home and noticed that I had something hiding under one of the nice small Knightia. I tried to split the layers again on the larger fish but failed to get it off in one slab. I really didn't want to damage the Knightia so I decided to stop while I was ahead, but I think the way it ended up makes a really cool piece. Anyway, any guesses on the larger fish? I'm thinking maybe another Mioplosus? Also, what is the recommendation on sealing these? One quarry recommended dipping in thinned Elmers glue, the other recommended spraying with Krylon satin clear spray paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted September 23, 2021 Share Posted September 23, 2021 Like advised already, the choice is yours. For me, I have no problem sometimes taking my acrylics and make them very watery like tea and then apply. All that does is sorta kinda make the missing areas a bit more color and for such little effort, it really makes a huge difference. With these particular fish I would get two colors ready. One for the very dark, like the spines, fin bones and such and the redder color for body. Would take me about 5 minutes. Then I would carefully coat with Glyptal and that will make them 'POP' and look most lovely. Whatever you do, good luck. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptychodus04 Posted September 24, 2021 Share Posted September 24, 2021 (edited) @Free1986 this is an older reference (prior to P. liops being identified as a separate genera) but it gives the counts for you. As for your disarticulated big fish, it looks like a Mioplosus but is hard to say for sure. I’m a huge opponent to Elmer’s and acrylics for coatings as they will both degrade over time. I only use conservation grade stabilizers like Vinac, Paraloid B76, or Butvar B72. Paraloid B76 is my preferred option due to ease of acquiring it and lower cost. It is also slightly harder than the other 2 options. I’ve been tasked with removing old coatings on fossils in the past and acrylic, Elmer’s, lacquer, etc. all make me swear like a longshoreman when they’ve been on a fossil for many years. They look terrible and are a nightmare to remove. Do your grandchildren a favor and don’t put them on your fossils. Edited September 24, 2021 by Ptychodus04 Correcting my own stupidity. Regards, Kris Global Paleo Services, LLC https://globalpaleoservices.com http://instagram.com/globalpaleoservices http://instagram.com/kris.howe 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