Jump to content

Ammonite, right?


kerrimarie805

Recommended Posts

Rockwood

Possibly, but I would go with brachiopod or possibly bivalve. Ammonite would seem a long shot. Notice the form just below and to the left of the 1.

  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

Once again: Please tell us every time you post in the id section exactly where it was found and also the stratigraphy where known.

  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood

If the question is the same the answer follows suit. I think the second post is more likely to be a brachiopod.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
val horn

The first fossil looks like a bivalve/brachiopod to me but the second would  go into my collection as an ammonite particularly with the right side showing a more complete and 3d side

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ludwigia said, if you really want the best possible Id you should consider telling us the age, or location if you don't know. This could eliminate may possibilities. In case you don't know why I will explain.

 

Different life forms evolve over time. If the deposits where it was found were laid down before we know a thing evolved we can eliminate that possibility.

 

They usually go extinct eventually. If a find comes from deposits laid down after we know something was extinct we can eliminate that from consideration.

 

Some things live only in the ocean so you wouldn't likely find those in terrestrial deposits. Somethings are not usually found in marine deposits so that would at least limit the likelihood of those being the answer.

 

For your fossils the brachiopods that looked something like the first one you showed us did not live at the same time as ammonites and vice-versa. It can also help to tell us what other fossils you find near the find in question. The more information you can provide, the better answers we can offer.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
ClearLake

Just to add a bit to emphasize what @BobWill said, the age/locality information is especially important when the fossils in question are fragments as yours are. Without the complete fossil, the ID possibilities are likely much greater so any info that can narrow the range of possibilities is helpful. 

 

I would agree that that the first one is likely a bivalve or brachiopod but knowing some info on its age or location might allow someone familiar with the fauna of the area to suggest a more specific and certain ID. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm sorry, I forget to include the location sometimes and do realize how important it is. Both of these pieces were found in the panhandle of Nebraska, less than 15 miles from the Wyoming border. 

I can see now that the first piece is a partial brachiopod, which makes sense as the two smaller impressions on that piece I did recognize to likely be brachiopod moulds when I found it. I feel kinda silly for asking about that one now!

The second piece I am able to view better in the photo, actually, and do think that one is an ammonite from what I see. However, I come to you all because I have very little knowledge of what finds may be possible in my location. 

So, what say you now that you know where I found the second piece?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...