erose Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) Bob, I had to sort and resort mine numerous times to get them straightened out. But my IDs are still tentative. The "productids" in general are all very very similar and not easy without perfect specimens and interiors to view. Also I think your other brach with the fine ornament is Phricodothyris. Again, Cleiothyridina is smaller and has finer detail. That is based on images from numerous publications. But still tentative.... Edited March 18, 2012 by erose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Not to muck things up... but I believe these are Retaria lasallensis (Worthen). That is based on size (larger than Hystriculina) and several other ID sources such as Index Fossils of North America. I am extremely frustrated by what should be a great ID reference: Texas Pennsylvanian Brachiopods, Herbert et al., 1990, HGMS. For many of the listed species the book is fine but for some the drawings and descriptions are really lacking. AND as always the stratigraphic data is dubious. It's still one of my first references but it also sometimes leaves me even more in doubt. For you beginners and intermediates THIS is why us old farts suggest getting your hands on as many books and papers as possible. Thanks a lot, Erose. The first problem I ran into was that your Retaria lasallensis is referred to as Marginifera lasallensis in Index fossils of North America. That discrepancy led me to this-- Synonymy list Year Name and author 1873 Productus lasallensis Worthen 1960 Retaria lasallensis Muir-Wood and Cooper p. 230 1962 Marginifera lasallensis Mudge et al. p. 84 figs. Pl 14, figs 18-20 1977 Kutorginella lasallensis Sarycheva p. 66 figs. Pl 6, figs 8-11; text-fig 38,39 1993 Kutorginella lasallensis Kalashnikov p. 50 figs. Pl 22, figs 3,4; pl 24, figs 12 Which makes me cynically believe that every new PhD candidate, in an attempt to find something original to add to the literature, just renames a lot of stuff. That list of names brought me back to the Forum, and this topic in which Fruitbat agrees with you. I think at this point I've got one option left. I'll be at the Bureau of Economic Geology UT Austin this summer for a week-long teacher workshop on climate change. I've developed strong relationships with several professors there. I may extend my stay by a day, and see if I can access some of the collections in the Paleo Database, and compare my specimens in hand with some type specimens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Euphemites sp. Mostly based on Lance's site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Medium micro-matrix--washed and sieved down to less than 1/4 inch. Rich matrix if you look closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The first problem I ran into was that your Retaria lasallensis is referred to as Marginifera lasallensis in Index fossils of North America. That discrepancy led me to this-- Synonymy list Year Name and author 1873 Productus lasallensis Worthen 1960 Retaria lasallensis Muir-Wood and Cooper p. 230 1962 Marginifera lasallensis Mudge et al. p. 84 figs. Pl 14, figs 18-20 1977 Kutorginella lasallensis Sarycheva p. 66 figs. Pl 6, figs 8-11; text-fig 38,39 1993 Kutorginella lasallensis Kalashnikov p. 50 figs. Pl 22, figs 3,4; pl 24, figs 12 Which makes me cynically believe that every new PhD candidate, in an attempt to find something original to add to the literature, just renames a lot of stuff. I've thought the same thing about renaming. For marginiferids, I just call them 'Kozlowskia' unless I find something obviously different. I'm too lazy to really take a close look and differentiate them. As far as keeping track of name changes through the years, it's probably key to note the species names attached to genera, eg. lasallensis that you have listed above. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 I've thought the same thing about renaming. For marginiferids, I just call them 'Kozlowskia' unless I find something obviously different. I'm too lazy to really take a close look and differentiate them. As far as keeping track of name changes through the years, it's probably key to note the species names attached to genera, eg. lasallensis that you have listed above. At this point I don't know if I'm spinning my wheels, trying to break into an inside game, or just "tagging" with a bunch of bangers. Is there any science to this, or at least some economics to this? Productus lasallensis Retaria lasallensis Marginifera lasallensis Kutorginella lasallensis ??? It's all Greek (or Latin) to me. But some seem to have stakes in the game. I can't figure out what the game is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Since there is no clearinghouse for genus and species names, I'm guessing here.... Productus was an early catch-all for productid brachs. As you know, that split into many types. I'm not sure if the name Productus has been reserved for anything. Next, Marginifera was a catch-all (I believe) for Kozlowskia-Hystriculina-Desmoinesia-etc. Again, Marginifera may still be in use, or maybe not. Once Marginifera was split up, who knows? I suppose the answer is in a series of papers scattered throughout the literature. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 It's all part of the process of defining relationships; when a researcher has (or thinks they have) enough info to refine the taxonomy, they publish their findings and their conclusions, and their peers either accept it or refute it (again by publishing). It will be a loooong time before we know it all (and what a dull world that would be)! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) Those original genera had a description that would still apply to the type species used to describe the genus (= geno type?...I'm not a paleontologist). So there should still be a valid Productus and a Marginifera. You could look them up in the Treatise or probably IFNA. What happens is that other similar species get dumped into the genus but then someone takes a closer look and decides that there are differences substantial enough to warrant erection of a new genus. This can happen when better material is found or someone just decides enough-is-enough with these "catch all" classifications. In general the original species name should remain intact if it was based on good material and research. The way to know when a species has been renamed is to look at the author's name and note if it is in parenthesis or not. Parenthesis denote a re-assignment was made. There may also be a date attached which should lead you back to the original description and assignment. Because these things happen often the best you can do is take good notes and keep track of your ID sources. My catalog includes an "ID Reference" for each fossil and sometimes two or three. That way I can go back and see why I placed it in a genus and/or species. The bottom line is that Productus lasalensis Worthen IS the same as Retaria lasallensis (Worthen) or any of the others. In my case I have decided to go with Herbert et al., 1990 & IFNA as my ID references. Should I spend more time on it and get my hands on newer references it might be revised. But for now I am confident in my ID at my amateur level. What is coming down the pike eventually (5, 10, 20 years?) will be online catalogs of type specimens with photos and other metrics. This will make it possible to do easily what it takes paleontologists years to do. Edited March 19, 2012 by erose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Missourian, Auspex, Erose I'm developing a better idea of how the big picture comes together over time. Thanks. Is the http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl as valuable a resource as I'm assuming it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Missourian, Auspex, Erose I'm developing a better idea of how the big picture comes together over time. Thanks. Is the http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl as valuable a resource as I'm assuming it is? I use it to find out who authored a species all the time. It can be a bit confusing when it comes to synonymy but that's par for the coarse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I hate to say this, but I gave up on IDing my Jacksboro oddities. A number of years ago I took a liking to Jacksboro and hit it to see what was there. I have over 5000 specimens from the site. Unfortunately I have a small bag with about 50 specimens that I do not foresee ever IDing. Noone seems to really care about this formation. It's too bad. We need a gung-ho PhD student to take all the rare stuff and make a thesis out of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I hate to say this, but I gave up on IDing my Jacksboro oddities. A number of years ago I took a liking to Jacksboro and hit it to see what was there. I have over 5000 specimens from the site. Unfortunately I have a small bag with about 50 specimens that I do not foresee ever IDing. Noone seems to really care about this formation. It's too bad. We need a gung-ho PhD student to take all the rare stuff and make a thesis out of it! Post images here and let us take a shot. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Post images here and let us take a shot. I agree! We're calling you out Boneman. Let's see the goods.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hey Mike, Fascinating topic, and your pics are pretty good. Those corals are attractive. As for IDing I know what a quagmire it can be, so for my local stuff, if I am not confident in a name, or if I have none at all (my access to literature is limited and sometimes the preservation isn't ideal for identification), I just leave it blank (or just put "bivalve" or "brachiopod" etc) and the pros when they get ahold of my stuff can tackle it then. In meantime I collect every example of an unID'd thing I can find, hoping that the more specimens I have the more the difference and similarities will become apparent. I've already got 5 or 6 different types of little bivalves that I have no name for. I would like to have an ID for everything but in my case there is much more work to be done on the local U. Cret. fauna before that's possible. Looking forward to more pics, including Boneman's.. oddities are always interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hey Mike, Fascinating topic, and your pics are pretty good. Those corals are attractive. As for IDing I know what a quagmire it can be, so for my local stuff, if I am not confident in a name, or if I have none at all (my access to literature is limited and sometimes the preservation isn't ideal for identification), I just leave it blank (or just put "bivalve" or "brachiopod" etc) and the pros when they get ahold of my stuff can tackle it then. In meantime I collect every example of an unID'd thing I can find, hoping that the more specimens I have the more the difference and similarities will become apparent. I've already got 5 or 6 different types of little bivalves that I have no name for. I would like to have an ID for everything but in my case there is much more work to be done on the local U. Cret. fauna before that's possible. Looking forward to more pics, including Boneman's.. oddities are always interesting. Thanks for the comment on the pics. I'm learning how to use a 70 dollar (USA) point and shoot as best I can. Also thanks for mentioning collecting numerous specimens. Most of me says leave stuff for the next guy or gal--especially at a public site like Jacksboro. But I also believe I'm taking this seriously, and not just "hoarding" fossils. Damaged and or duplicates are going into bags and bottles to either be shared with my students, other teachers, or a possible addition to a Fossil Forum auction to support the Forum. I haven't even come close to posting about the odd bits I've found at Jacksboro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangellian Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Yes, I'd say the number of specimens you take home out of the total number you see is related to the rarity and preservation, and I rarely leave something behind if I can't yet name it - not unless I've already got a gazillion of them and it's poorly preserved. You never know how many the scientists will need if they are going to describe a new genus/species, and you'll want to have some left over from that to keep for yourself if possible! Edited March 20, 2012 by Wrangellian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boneman007 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I agree! We're calling you out Boneman. Let's see the goods.... Ok. But it has to be #3 on my to-do list. I am working on IDing my pawpaw decapods right now. They will be posted soon. I am also trying to get a swordfish skull prepped as well. After that I will deal with all the little bivalves and such from Jacksboro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Oh, #1 & #2 sound pretty darn good too. I can wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I've got many more fossils to photograph and ID from these two trips to Jacksboro. I'm still processing, and cleaning fossils. But a few observations on cleaning fossils from Jax. I tend to like, look for, and collect small stuff. Not necessarily micro, but definitely measured in millimeters and not centimeters. I may actually miss stuff that my hunting partner finds because I tend to focus small. But in the process of cleaning, sorting and photographing a few Jacksboro fossils I've learned a few things. Patience. Patience. Then some more patience. Collecting small, all material goes into a sieve--1/2 inch or less. Wash and rinse cycle. Shake. Wash and rinse cycle. Shake. Repeat as needed. From the larger sieves sort and pick by eye. Save the discards for boring days. You could have missed a jewel. Take the sorted bits and soak in household hydrogen peroxide. Wash and rinse cycle. Shake. Wash and rinse. I'm very impatient. I'm a bad taoist. But this method is starting to work for me. With certain Pennsylvanian fossils from North-Central Texas. Your mileage may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I start mine by soaking them in water with dish detergent. Good old soap has proven itself well for loosening the dirt. After that my process is similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) I start mine by soaking them in water with dish detergent. Good old soap has proven itself well for loosening the dirt. After that my process is similar. Me too. I don't think I've ever used anything but soapy water and a tooth brush on Jaxbro stuff. I do have some hash plates from there with some great micro-ish fossils but will probably leave them in the matrix. Thinking of making a video voyage across a hash plate if I only had a video camera that could focus in close enough. Anyone with experience or ideas for that? Edited March 24, 2012 by BobWill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecable Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Me too. I don't think I've ever used anything but soapy water and a tooth brush on Jaxbro stuff. I do have some hash plates from there with some great micro-ish fossils but will probably leave them in the matrix. Thinking of making a video voyage across a hash plate if I only had a video camera that could focus in close enough. Anyone with experience or ideas for that? You might try some hydrogen peroxide on a few specimens. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. I am just using generic 3% peroxide--$1.39 for 32 oz. My experiments with vinegar were for the most part disastrous. The fossils dissolved at almost the same rate as the matrix. With the peroxide, I see definite evidence of a chemical reaction through multiple cycles--fizzing. But at the end my fossils look better, not worse. I'm not a chemist, but the peroxide seems to be removing not-fossil material, while leaving beautiful fossils. I just started a test on a small piece of Jax hash plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I might try that on one but I like hash plates intact too. The trick to using any acid is adjusting strength to the specimen. Dilute to a very week solution and use less water and shorter exposures until you get good results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgodwin37 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Peroxide is oxidizing the organic matter in the shale or any clay in a limestone, or just the "dirt" covering your sample. 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