Jump to content

North Sulphur River Ids Needed


CrashTestDummy

Recommended Posts

The following were found on Sunday (4/6/08) in the North Suphur River basin in NE Texas by my family and I. Any ID help will be greatly appreciated.

post-362-1207616056_thumb.jpg

post-362-1207616074_thumb.jpg

At first I thought this had to be a fossilized oak leaf, but then I found (and lost) a webpage that had a similar example and which identified it as something much different. Can someone here refresh my memory?

post-362-1207616111_thumb.jpg

Just an odd rock? Or something stranger (like fossilized poop)?

post-362-1207616136_thumb.jpg

post-362-1207616142_thumb.jpg

One online site I found showed an example similar to this one and it was identified as some sort of crab. Is that what this is? If not, any ideas?

post-362-1207616163_thumb.jpg

post-362-1207616180_thumb.jpg

I thought this one was really interesting due to the "inner" material visible in the second photo. That inner material isn't visible at the other end of the piece, so I was imagining some sort of blunt tooth, maybe? (pardon me, I'm new to fossils) :rolleyes:

post-362-1207616219_thumb.jpg

post-362-1207616226_thumb.jpg

These deep black rocks/fossils have no recognizable shape (other than irregular), but the way they look compacted makes me believe they may be fossils of some sort?

post-362-1207616266_thumb.jpg

And this is just your standard petrified wood, right?

Ooops, forgot one:

post-362-1207617956_thumb.jpg

The color in the photo didn't come out real good, but this is one of those reddish brown rocks. Fossil?

Fred B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure the first 2 pics are sections of an ammonite.

Those patterns are the sutures.

I think what you thought might be a crab, look like concretions to me.

Further down, those finds that look tube-like, are the shape of baculite,

but do not see the details usually associated with it. I am not certain on that one.

The picture that you thought might be an odd rock, I would agree.

The black fossils may be more baculite but cannot be certain. The details may have

worn off. I don't think that is fossilized wood as it looks like quartz inside the pic to the right.

Check for more answers as I am not an expert by any means.

Welcome to the forum..

That last photo that you added is baculite. They are pretty cool.

Welcome to the forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first two are segments of an ammonite. As Roz pointed out, the patterns are the sutures. Google "ammonite sutures" for details.

I've often wondered about rocks like your third picture. I've found many at the North Sulfur river, but I think they're just rocks.

I'm not sure about your 4th and 5th pictures. Again, I've found many like that. Perhaps they're concretions formed around something else. Perhaps not.

Pictures 6 and 7... I'm afraid it looks like another rock to me. The thing about the NSR fossils is that most of them are the color of either your "red" ammonite or the shiny charcoal grey/black fossils in your 8th and 9th pictures.

Pictures 8 and 9... probably straight ammonites with the details worn off. If there's any porous structure visible in the broken ends, they could be small bones, but I think it's unlikely.

Picture 10... I'll let others answer. There wasn't any "wood" in the seas where the Mosasaur and Ammonite fossils come from, so I'm inclined to think it's a mineral of some sort.

Last picture is a segment of a straight Ammonite. Again, the pattern is from the sutures.

Every complex scientific problem has an elegant and simple solution... and it is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with Roz on the identifications:

Photos 1 and 2 are indeed ammonite fragments of some sort.

Photo 3 is an 'odd rock'

Photos 4 and 5 are of a broken concretion containing limonite (an iron oxide compound)

Photos 6 and 7 are, I believe, the partial internal cast of a baculite

Photos 8 and 9 are baculites (with the possible exception of the top specimen in Photo 9....that one I can't tell)

Photo 10 - the larger piece is a mineral (I think it is gypsum); the smaller piece may be petrified wood

Photo 11 is a nice baculite section

Looks like you had a fun trip!

-Joe

Illigitimati non carborundum

Fruitbat's PDF Library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ammonite frag is Pachydiscus paulsoni from the Red Zone of the Ozan formation, roughly 76 million years old. The black and red straight fossils with white sutures and bumps (nodes) on the sides are Baculites sp. molds, also from the Red Zone. This zone outcrops approximately from 1 1/4 miles upstream of 2990 to Hwy 34 in Ladonia sporadically in the channel and banks of the river and creeks. I've done well both at ground level and by getting a running start up the bank, grabbing a root, and clawing away at the Red Zone with a pick while hanging 15 feet above the channel.

I've taken quite a few Texas crustaceans in the last 3 years and would have to say that although they do occasionally occur on the NSR, in this particular instance we are not looking at one. Best of luck though...crabs are cool. I'm surprised they don't have a bigger following like trilobites actually.

Grüße,

Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas

"To the motivated go the spoils."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, thanks folks! I've googled all of the IDs and now see what you mean. The Ammonite sutures are so strange. On my example some of them look like miniature oak leaf designs while others look like cedar needles. Very intricate!

The googled info on concretions (Wikipedia) was also very interesting. I think we may have a few additional concretions in our lot.

On the gypsum/petrified wood issue... I may be wrong, but I was told that the NSR is rich in petrified wood (as well as marine fossils), which would seem to contradict Shady's comments if correct? I have no idea, myself. I'm just going by what I read online about the NSR. In any case, I was envisioning calcite as the mineral replacing the wood in my example and, because of the outside patterns, assumed it was petrified wood (the large piece in my photo). However, after trying to imagine a branch or tree growing "flat" (both sides on my example having the outside wood patterns), and looking up rock gypsum on the 'net, I'd have to agree with Joe (or maybe Roz on the "quartz" ID).

Okay, so I think we have most of these positively IDed. Thanks a ton! I have a few more, including a Mosasaur vertebrae (I believe) that my wife found, and some other interesting things I'll probably post soon for additional positive ID. What a great forum! Our kids are having fun hunting for, and learning about, these ancient fossils. Thanks for the help and for the warm welcome :)

Fred B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus
I was envisioning calcite as the mineral replacing the wood in my example and, because of the outside patterns, assumed it was petrified wood (the large piece in my photo).

It wouldn't be "petrified" if it was calcified. By definition petrification refers to permineralization by silica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be "petrified" if it was calcified. By definition petrification refers to permineralization by silica.

Are you sure? I keep finding the following sort of definition (this one from Delaware Mineralogical Society - emphasis is mine):

"What is petrified wood?

By general definition, petrified wood is tree material that has undergone mineralization. This could

loosely apply to man-made pressure-treated lumber or naturally preserved ancient kauri wood from New

Zealand. More on that later.

For our intensive purpose here, we intend to visit nature’s fully fossilized trees.

Petrified wood is a fossil created by the replacement of a tree’s plant cell shapes with minerals,

such as quartz, calcite, or pyrite. A stone cast is left after the lignin and cellulose decay. It’s telltale

colorful grain patterns and concentric rings are fostered by staining minerals, such as iron, manganese,

or copper. Pure silica exhibits a bluish-white hue."

And this one from the Ancient Treasures (Canada) website:

"What is Petrified Wood?

Petrified wood is basically the fossilized remains of long dead trees and plants. ‘Petrification’ is the process by which the fibrous organic tissues are gradually replaced by silica or calcite. It occurs when trees are buried suddenly under heavy sediment, creating an oxygen free environment which promotes petrification and beautifully preserves the resulting fossils."

Silica (as in quartz and sand) is a mineral, but calcite is also a mineral, right? So if calcite is present, it would still be "mineralization" of the wood?

Fred B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had Paleo, I was taught that it refers to silica. It is an archaic term used by laymen. Not many Paleontologists use the term.

See this:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/permin.html

See, even the Berkeley site you linked to says: "Sometimes the mineral substance of the fossils will completely dissolve and other minerals replace them. Common minerals that form this kind of fossil are calcite, iron, and silica."

Not trying to argue though, just seeking clarification. The difference may lie in the verb "calcify" (a mineral *process*) versus the noun, "calcite" (a mineral itself)? Just a question of semantics?

I'm not questioning whether the ancient wood becomes "mineralized," I understand it does, but whether "calcite" can be one of those minerals that replace the original wood? Sorry for the confusion.

Fred B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...