historianmichael Posted December 18, 2021 Share Posted December 18, 2021 (edited) @JamieLynn's post about the recent PSoA field trip to Wilson Clay Pit reminded me that I was in need of creating my own trip report too. Early last month I made my first ever trip to Wilson Clay Pit in hopes of finding some of the incredible Late Pennsylvanian echinoderm and vertebrate material that I had read so much about. I was a little nervous about visiting (after hearing stories about rattlesnake encounters), so I was fortunate to convince a friend to join me. He must have brought the luck because not only did I find two nearly complete Petalodus teeth and a nearly complete Petalodus crown, but I also found an articulated crinoid cup with three partial associated arms and a trilobite pygidium. Beginners luck I guess! A big thank you again to @Ptychodus04 for the prep work on the crinoid cup. Petalodus ohioensis Ditomopyge scitula pygidium Delocrinus vulgatus crown with associated arms and boring sponge damage Crinoid Stems, including one with boring sponge damage Archaeocidaris sp. Plate and Spine Polypora sp. Fusulinids Derbyia crassa Jurensia symmetrica Punctospirifer kentuckyensis Neospirifer cameratus Neochonetes granulifer Crurithyris planoconvexa Composita subtilita Linoproductus cora Hystriculina wabashensis Desmoinesia muricatina Marginifera fragilis Allorisma terminale Palaeoneilo oweni Edmondia nebrascensis Euphemites vittatus Septimyalina perattenuata Edited December 19, 2021 by historianmichael 6 17 Follow me on Instagram (@fossil_mike) to check out my personal collection of fossils collected and acquired over more than 15 years of fossil hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connorp Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 Awesome teeth. I’d love to collect the Texas Pennsylvanian one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misha Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 Awesome finds! Especially those teeth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deutscheben Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 That’s an excellent assortment of finds. You really hit the Petalodus jackpot though, wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 I had to type in Petalodus to find out what it was. Thats purty dang cool. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bthemoose Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 Those are some great Petalodus teeth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey P Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 That Delocrinus calyx with arms is a real stunner! Also love all those fine brachiopods, shark teeth, and the trilobite pygidium. Hopefully there will be some decent fossils left by the time I get there. Nice score Michael! Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 Great fossils. You really did exceptionally well with those teeth. The crinoid cup with arms is rather tasty as well. I have multiple cups with those bore holes. What is your reference for them being sponge? The one in the crinoid stem is not a sponge. I forget the name but the gall forming trace fossils have been attributed to a type of worm i believe. I’ll look it up and get you a name and reference. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historianmichael Posted December 20, 2021 Author Share Posted December 20, 2021 2 hours ago, erose said: What is your reference for them being sponge? Mark McKinzie noted in Pennsylvanian Fossils of North Texas that the circular pits have been attributed to boring sponges. His references were Branson 1964, 1965. 1 Follow me on Instagram (@fossil_mike) to check out my personal collection of fossils collected and acquired over more than 15 years of fossil hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 I think we talked about your possible Aviculopinna from there but you never said you were going to add three more bivalves to my fauna list for WCP! I see where Septimyalina, Edmondia and Palaeoneilo are known from other Texas Pennsylvanian sites but not the pit. It always struck me as odd there wouldn't be more bivalves in the Saddle Creek and Harpersville. Now there are! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herve Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 Hello very nice brachiopodes 1 J collecting only fossils since 30 years old,ammonites,heteromorphe ammonite,crabs,fish trilobit, sea urshins, mammals, etc...J am married . Sorry for my enghish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kmiecik Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 Thank you. I enjoyed your post. Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 14 hours ago, historianmichael said: Mark McKinzie noted in Pennsylvanian Fossils of North Texas that the circular pits have been attributed to boring sponges. His references were Branson 1964, 1965. I have that book as well. Guess I need to go back and read it again.... I'll look up the Branson papers as well. And I'll dig up the name for those galls as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 58 minutes ago, erose said: I have that book as well. Guess I need to go back and read it again.... I'll look up the Branson papers as well. And I'll dig up the name for those galls as well. I see where the Pictorial Guide to Upper Pennsylvanian Fossils Ben Neuman is putting together for the Dallas Paleo website ( https://dallaspaleo.org/Jacksboro-Study-Group ) mentions a name for the "gall-like borings" Tremichnus cysticus (inchnospecies) but includes a question mark after "sponge" and a reference to Brett 1985 and Girty 1911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 6 hours ago, BobWill said: I see where the Pictorial Guide to Upper Pennsylvanian Fossils Ben Neuman is putting together for the Dallas Paleo website ( https://dallaspaleo.org/Jacksboro-Study-Group ) mentions a name for the "gall-like borings" Tremichnus cysticus (inchnospecies) but includes a question mark after "sponge" and a reference to Brett 1985 and Girty 1911. I looked up the paper by Brett. Seems he was replacing, or better defining, what I was calling Myzostomites sp., which I found in the Treatise Part W(supplement) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 49 minutes ago, erose said: I looked up the paper by Brett. Seems he was replacing, or better defining, what I was calling Myzostomites sp., which I found in the Treatise Part W(supplement) So, "worms" it is. Part W, a book for everything except everything else. I haven't seen that volume yet, I guess those would be under polychaetes. Does that volume include ichnofossils too? Anything to do with the group W bench? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 14 minutes ago, BobWill said: So, "worms" it is. Part W, a book for everything except everything else. I haven't seen that volume yet, I guess those would be under polychaetes. Does that volume include ichnofossils too? Anything to do with the group W bench? LOL This was under ichnofossils not worms. Brett changed the name because ichnospecies are not supposed to reference an actual organism 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 31 minutes ago, erose said: This was under ichnofossils not worms. Brett changed the name because ichnospecies are not supposed to reference an actual organism So, is Myzostomites sp. no longer a species or does he just think they are "worms" that were not the cause of Tremichnus cysticus the ichnospecies? I'm still confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 8 hours ago, BobWill said: So, is Myzostomites sp. no longer a species or does he just think they are "worms" that were not the cause of Tremichnus cysticus the ichnospecies? I'm still confused. I’m not sure I know exactly why but it seems that ichno species are not supposed to be named for actual animals since the fossil isn’t the actual animal. Myzostomites was named originally because it resembled what an extant worm (Myostatum?) does to crinoids. I had to read a synopsis of Brett’s paper and then pull up the actual paper at Jstor. So there is an extant critter that causes galls. But I still believe the borings in cups are not the same IMHO. 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