Jump to content

Texas rule ?


Rockwood

Recommended Posts

This was found as a clast in what I believe to be undisturbed marl in the bank of the creek which runs between the defunct Arlington Archosaur site and the rail road track at the south end of Euless Maine St.. Other clasts of coalified wood were fairly common there.

Do I get to declare this rudist debris ? Using, well, you know, the rule. :)

IMG_5411 (2).JPG

IMG_5412 (2).JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have a little gastropod in it.  Does it still count.  And for the benefit of those not from texas (me)can you show a couple of pretty rudest photos?  Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BobWill said:

If you mean the "rule" for identifying anything a rudist that can't be otherwise identified then, yes! ;)

That's the one. Thanks. :thumbsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, val horn said:

for the benefit of those not from texas (me)can you show a couple of pretty rudest photos?

I just posted my entire collection, to date. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, val horn said:

It does have a little gastropod in it.  Does it still count.  And for the benefit of those not from texas (me)can you show a couple of pretty rudest photos?  Thanks

There may be a bit of an echinoid too. To illustrate why we can call (almost) anything a rudist may I present this illustration:Rudist Bivalves | Prehistoric creatures, Fossil, Fossils

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methinks this might be something displaced. I KNOW there's no Pennsylvanian stuff at the Archeosaur site......but I think this is Pennsylvanian! You can see a bit of bryozoan, that echinoid plate and I am pretty sure that's a crinoid at the bottom. NOW...that being said....all of those things COULD be Cretaceous too. I have found round crinoids in the Glen Rose, and Bryozoans too. So I don't think it's Rudist but I also couldn't definitively say what or when it's from.

198428642_IMG_5411(2).JPG.d50598401c61e52b3ef8119939cc12ea.thumb.jpg.95f6c9d0f83466cee41112ebf0316ea3.jpg

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

This was found as a clast in what I believe to be undisturbed marl in the bank of the creek which runs between the defunct Arlington Archosaur site and the rail road track at the south end of Euless Maine St.. Other clasts of coalified wood were fairly common there.

Do I get to declare this rudist debris ? Using, well, you know, the rule. :)

 

You only get to use the rule if rudists are expected to occur in the area. I have not heard of any common rudists found in the Eagle Ford Group down to the Main Street Limestone. Bob is right, echinoid shell fragments. Notice the spine attachment point and the semi hollow double-walled urchin fragments. Near the pen point is something that sort of looks like a crinoid fragment which does not really belong in the area. Maybe it is a bivalve or brachiopod. If it is a crinoid then you might have an exotic Paleozoic clast. The echinoids do look similar.

A5EA913C-6DCC-429C-BB4A-C0192D2899A3.png

17F50DAD-6361-48E3-8691-43796FE8A59F.png

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

23 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

a crinoid fragment which does not really belong in the area.

I was too quick to give up the search for something like this I guess. I did find a postage stamp sized plate of these, with a small stem section included, in crushed rock in the same general area. I understand that most of that is upper Paleozoic, and stuff like it has been washed into the area by rivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JamieLynn & @DPS Ammonite  I had an idea y'all would thwart my attempt to ignore those details. Considering that most of the crushed rock brought in for construction comes from the quarries in Wise and Jack counties we should not be suprised to see Pennsylvanian hash anywhere in the DFW area. Someone please try again to illustrate the Texas/rudist rule.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, val horn said:

It does have a little gastropod in it.  Does it still count.  And for the benefit of those not from texas (me)can you show a couple of pretty rudest photos?  Thanks

Here is a pretty rudist, came from Eagle Ford creek nearby but more than likely it too came from imported crushed rock.  I had this in a post awhile back and it was declared Texas rule :)

IMG_20210808_043340980.jpg.37baea8ac7dbcce286fa60d79b3c4d86.jpg

IMG_20210917_201555933.jpg.02c5a7f828bf21e91ec35f6380ff8b72.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inoceramids are the other Cretaceous great imitator. Ya think you have a jaw, tooth, vertebra, etc., etc.....

  • I Agree 2

Context is critical.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...