Jump to content

Fossil ID


MacHoffman22

Recommended Posts

I appreciate all the help. At least we have the right general idea amongst everyone. My friend said he found multiple on a gravel road. Makes me wonder where the gravel is coming from to contain such large fossils or if the many specimens he has, somehow deposited themselves there.

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it spelled with two c's and no s more than not, this example from researchgate. If it's ok with them it's ok with me. :).  

Figure B-5: Fossilized shells fragment in Pierre shale. Bacculite and ammonite shell fragments , as well as concretions, were very common in Pierre shale outcrop samples.  
 

Figure B-5: Fossilized shells fragment in Pierre shale. Bacculite and ammonite shell fragments , as well as concretions, were very common in Pierre shale outcrop samples.  

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that there is some common usage of baculite (one c and no t) for a member of the genus Baculites.  I have heard of Baculite Mesa in Colorado , but not Baculites Mesa.

 

I see usage of ceratite, goniatite and  ammonite as common names for similarly named taxa. Informal usage of baculite is probably OK as a common name and not a genus.
 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/baculite

 

Edited by DPS Ammonite

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

Lamarck originally gave this species the name Baculites in 1799 in Mêm. Soc. H. n. Paris page 80, so I suppose that is the correct spelling.

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Check the dictionary, a single member of the genus is a bactulite. Hold the s.

 

 

No T in there, Dale. ;)

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

3 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

 

No T in there, Dale. ;)

Agreed. I hadn't noticed that I made the same mistake after I just looked it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Agreed. I hadn't noticed that I made the same mistake after I just looked it up.

 

Merely the blessings of advanced age. Gets me right between the eyes at times as well. :)

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this we mean we can change the name someone gives an entire genus any time we like? I thought you had to submit a paper for that :)

Of course casual conversation is not the same as science speak but it never hurts to get used to passing along information that is as correct as possible and the "s" is part of the name given by the person who went to all the trouble of researching it.

  • Enjoyed 2
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Plax said:

Must we call you Robert?:BigSmile:


As long as you always italicize it when writing or speaking his name.

 

Related note: always italicize Baculites to let everyone know that you are referring to a formal genera and not a common name.

 

I am so thankful that we don’t have to italicize mineral species. 

Edited by DPS Ammonite

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

6 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Baculites, baculite maybe ? :) One still wouldn't want to diss Webster's now would one.

Actually, yes. It turns out Webster employs a full-time crew correcting mistakes. When you give a name to a genus it cannot be a mistake, you get to decide. It may help to get used to pronouncing it the way I've always heard it from professional paleontologists.   back- you- light'- ease

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Baculites, baculite maybe ? :) One still wouldn't want to diss Webster's now would one.

 

Dictionaries should have the official taxon name along with (in most cases) the common name which is often closely related by spelling. Look at the Wikipedia entry for the Baculites taxon. 

 

Here is my list of the taxon name and common name

pairs:

 

Animalia/animal

Mollusca/mollusc

Cephalopoda/cephalopod

Ammonoidea/ammonoid

Ammonitida/ammonite

Baculitidae/baculitid

Baculites/baculite

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculites

 

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 1

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

Here is a common one from north Texas: 

 

 

Edited by DPS Ammonite

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

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...