Pennsylvanian Gastropods And Bivalves

[Kehbe]

Turitella and either Worthenia and/or Baylea? Just a few of the literally, hundreds that are scattered on a hillside right off the highway. I had heard of there being a lot of these at this location but I had no idea there are so many! It amazes me to think of them when they were alive and the concentration there must have been for so many of them to have fossilized in this relatively small area. For instance, were there lots of them all alive at the same time or fewer of them over a long period of time? Were they living where I found them or did they wash in to that area after they died? I am not sure of the strata they are in but I think Missourian knows what area I am talking about. Maybe he can shed some light on that! Take a look!

pic1

pic2

pic3

Edited July 31, 2012 by Kehbe

[Missourian]

Indeed.

I believe they lived where they are found. The environment was likely a delta front.

Also, one nice thing about that spot is how the gastropods keep weathering out of the slope no matter how much it is picked over.

[grokfish]

Awesome finds!

[Wrangellian]

Hey KB, looks like the mother lode! Is this spot smaller than the famous Jacksboro/Bridgeport sites in TX? Even more impressive if so.

If these are Worthenia, it's interesting how they are a little higher-spired than the ones from TX. I'm not familiar with Baylea so I can't comment further. Are you sure those narrower ones are Turritella?

[Kehbe]

Wrang,

I'm not absolutely sure about the ID on any of these, hence the ?. The narrow ones might be meekospira. I am basing the ID on my very limited knowledge of gastropods and the pictures I could find just by googling "pennsylvanian gastropods". http://www.kgs.ku.ed.../gastropod.html This site pops up often in my searches for various pennsylvanian fossils and here in western Kansas City, Missouri, many of the same fossils are found as in eastern Kansas which is where those pictured at the link were found. As for the size of this spot, I would say it is less than a hundred yards long and only about an average of 15 to 20 feet in height and width. I am not familiar with the Jacksboro/Bridgeport sites in TX. so I couldn't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that this spot has the highest concentration of any type of fossils per square foot as any place that I have ever collected, discounting of course micro fossils such as foraminifer and the like that appear in many limestones of this area. I know this spot is pretty small. and these gastropods are literally on 2 inch centers. You are walking on fossils while collecting, unfortunatly you can't avoid it! I find myself tip-toeing around like I'm KungFu walking on onion skin paper without wrinkling it "When you can snatch the pebble from my hand young grasshoppa, you will be ready!" Wow, remember that show? Really showin my age there!

(edit) I just looked at a website for the Jacksboro site, if you are talking about the spillway hillside, it is MUCH larger than the spot these gastros come from but the gastro site here doesn't have near the variety as Jacksboro! I have found a very few small brachs and what I believe to be tiny clams as well as some crinoid and bryozoan pieces but not much more, just an abundance of gastros!

Edited June 2, 2012 by Kehbe

[Missourian]

Here's an id key I made a few months back for the gastropods from the site:

(Edit: I borrowed the images from Kansas Geo Survey Bulletin 169)

I also found at least one small orthocone cephalopod.

The shell preservation isn't nearly as good as that at Jacksboro.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Missourian

[Wrangellian]

OK so evidently there could be many different snails from the Penn. that look similar.

Maybe that place doesn't have the diversity of the TX sites but the abundance makes it just as impressive! I can't think of many spots anywhere near me that have anywhere near as much fossil density - Maybe the Oligocene Sooke Fm down on the S tip of the Island but they don't exactly weather out like these..

Edited June 8, 2012 by Wrangellian

[Kehbe]

These little bivalves are fairly abundant in the same area as the gastropods at the start of this thread. I am thinking maybe Nuculoida, possibly nuculana rostellata? Most are just one valve or the other but I did find several that are complete. The pictures are decent but really don't do these much justice as they are neat little fossils with a lot of character. I love the preservation of the concentric ribs. From the Pennsylvanian of Kansas City Missouri, I am still not certain of the member these come out of and I think Missourian told me once what it was but I didn't write it down and my memory isn't what it used to be! Anyways, here are a few pics and as usual, I am uncertain of my I.D. on these and am basing my I.D. on the description in my DK Smithsonian Fossil ID book and some pics and short descriptions I was able to find on the internet so I am completely open to and looking forward to suggestions and thoughts on these. Enjoy!

pic 1

pic 2

pic 3

[Missourian]

These have been called Nuculana and Phestia. I think Phestia is currently preferred by the powers that be.

I too like the character of the little clams. I've always wished they'd grown larger.

The bed is the Chanute Formation. This is the only spot I've seen mollusks in any appreciable amount.

[Herb]

Nice specimens and great site.

[Fossildude19]

Nice finds all around, Kyle!

I'm partial to the snails, although the clams are neat too.

Thanks for posting them.

Regards,

[Raistlin]

If there are that many it reminds me of the pond/creek snails you see today. Right now with the drought they are all piled up on each other in many cases there are so many of them they are sitting on rocks that are out side of the water.

I imagine if a flash flood came and covered them with silt we might have the same sort of thing.

[Wrangellian]

This comment might benefit me more than you but the bivalve looks similar (though not identical) to one from the Lk Bridgeport TX site that 'sward' Steve Ward sent me, but it didn't come with a name. The similarity in faunas makes sense though as they're similar in age and part of the world (I think Lk Bridgeport is Missourian age - I can't think offhand what age your formations are?)

[Missourian]

This comment might benefit me more than you but the bivalve looks similar (though not identical) to one from the Lk Bridgeport TX site that 'sward' Steve Ward sent me, but it didn't come with a name. The similarity in faunas makes sense though as they're similar in age and part of the world (I think Lk Bridgeport is Missourian age - I can't think offhand what age your formations are?)

The Chanute Formation is right in the middle of the Missourian.

[Kehbe]

Thanks Missourian, I know you have told me that it is the Chanute Formation before but I wrote it down this time. After reading this post again, I realized you said you have found an orthocone cephalopod at this same site? I have only been there twice because even though technically it is an entrance ramp, parking isn't the best unless you want to walk about a mile. Was the ceph small like the gastros and clams? I need a better preserved and more complete orthocone cephalopod. The only ones I have found have been bits and pieces and really don't even look like cephs. Got any pics of yours? Hey, thanks again for the info!

Thanks Herb! With the over abundance of material and ease of collecting it, I'm trying to figure out the logistics of getting my grandkids out there to this site with me! The more they find the more excited they get but it's nearness to a major highway is an issue as well as the parking.

Raistlin, Talking about modern snails, I have noticed an over abundance of empty recent terrestrial snail shells lately and I'm sure it is because of the heat and drought. They are just shriveling up. Have found a few really nice looking ones though.

Wrang, You are talking about the Jacksboro/Bridgeport site? So is the preservation better, as everyone says, of the fossils from Jacksboro than the ones posted here? How about size? These are on average a half inch long but I found a couple that are three quarter inch and some three eighths long. It would be interesting to have an example from each site to set side by side and really compare. I have enough of these to send you a few if you are interested and I think I still have your addy! Maybe Sward would be interested also!

[Missourian]

.... After reading this post again, I realized you said you have found an orthocone cephalopod at this same site?

I have only been there twice because even though technically it is an entrance ramp, parking isn't the best unless you want to walk about a mile. Was the ceph small like the gastros and clams? I need a better preserved and more complete orthocone cephalopod. The only ones I have found have been bits and pieces and really don't even look like cephs. Got any pics of yours? Hey, thanks again for the info!

Thanks Herb! With the over abundance of material and ease of collecting it, I'm trying to figure out the logistics of getting my grandkids out there to this site with me! The more they find the more excited they get but it's nearness to a major highway is an issue as well as the parking.

Here it is, along with two smaller ones I forgot I had:

As for parking, we've never had any trouble. I just pull over into the grass. The traffic on that ramp seemed to be pretty light. A couple years ago, I brought my 8-year-old nephew, and there were no issues. I could meet you out there if you need an extra set of adult eyes.

[Wrangellian]

Wrang, You are talking about the Jacksboro/Bridgeport site? So is the preservation better, as everyone says, of the fossils from Jacksboro than the ones posted here? How about size? These are on average a half inch long but I found a couple that are three quarter inch and some three eighths long. It would be interesting to have an example from each site to set side by side and really compare. I have enough of these to send you a few if you are interested and I think I still have your addy! Maybe Sward would be interested also!

I'm not sure if the preservation is better than yours without seeing them side by side, but it is pretty good.

Here is what sward sent me, Jacksboro on the left and Bridgeport on the right with closeups of the bivalve in question. He could name most of these for me, mainly the Jax, but not the clam. It is closer to an inch long, but seems to have finer growth lines and maybe a longer siphon end (whatever that part is called-?).. but it is clearly related to yours.

I would love to receive a few of these, and if you give me your addr. I'm sure I can put together a sampling of the more common items from my local Cretaceous for you too if you'd like. Yes I'm sure Steve would like to make an exchange with you as well, it would probably interest both of you to compare your Penn. assemblages! I haven't been in touch with him lately though, but I'm sure we can still find him around the Forum.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Wrangellian

[sward]

Kehbe & Wrangellian,

I just noticed the updates on this thread.

Kehbe, if you would like some samples from Jacksboro and Bridgeport for comparison, just send me a pm with your address. I can put some in the mail to you for comparison.

From looking at the pics, it looks like the TX samples, particularly the Jacksoboro samples, may have better preservation, but very similar variety. Jacksboro seems to be famous for it's preservation.

I find it fascinating how you get "clumps" of these things in a small area such as Jacksboro and your site, even when they're several hundred miles apart. It makes me wonder about the "environment" at the time. Why so many similar "critters" in one small area? Was the environment in your area very similar to the environment at Jacksboro?