Jersey Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) Missourian - thanks for the information and the inspiration to try it. A question - do you know if an iPhone 4 will work for this? (I haven't gone through all the many responses in the thread yet so sorry if this has been answered already.) Also - do you use a binocular microscope for these? I have a monocular microscope and wonder if it will work too? Edited December 17, 2013 by Jersey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted December 17, 2013 Author Share Posted December 17, 2013 Missourian - thanks for the information and the inspiration to try it. A question - do you know if an iPhone 4 will work for this? (I haven't gone through all the many responses in the thread yet so sorry if this has been answered already.) Also - do you use a binocular microscope for these? I have a monocular microscope and wonder if it will work too? Thanks. I use an iPhone 4s. The scope is binocular, but one eyepiece should be just as good. I should try to take a picture through both eyepieces and make a stereogram.... The main thing is to have enough room for the fossil to fit below the objective lens. Some microscopes may not leave room for much more than microfossils. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
younghound Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I need to learn more. These are really cool creatures/pictures. What is the most common mineral or rock microscopic lifeforms are found in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 On 1/1/2014 at 7:41 PM, younghound said: I need to learn more. These are really cool creatures/pictures. What is the most common mineral or rock microscopic lifeforms are found in? Thanks. Microfossils can probably be found in any kind of sedimentary rock, but they tend to turn up the most in shale or limestone. It's hard to say until they start to turn up, so the best strategy is to look for signs with a loupe and then place anything found (or possibly found) under the microscope. Sometimes microfossil-bearing matrix has a certain appearance with the naked eye in the field. A fine fossil hash containing microfossils can have a finely granular or salt-and-pepper appearance. I'll always collect some samples to check with the microscope at home. When I found this piece: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/33865-adventures-in-microscopy/?p=402017 , I really didn't know what I had, but I figured it was interesting enough to take a closer look. In my Pennsylvanian rocks, at least, conodonts are most easily found in black, platy shales. They may be found in other rock types, but can be difficult to see and collect. Ostracods have turned up in many places and often occur in large numbers. Forams have been a little more challenging. The white, tubular ones in this thread are easily spotted, especially when they are in great numbers. I haven't had much success yet with other types of small forams. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I've been finding an assortment of strange leaf-like fossils at a spot in the Pennsylvanian Quindaro Shale in Miami County, Kansas: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/26021-mystery-fossils-pennsylvanian/ I took the time to examine a couple under the microscope. Some branching forms: 4452-pahoeid-3.jpg Up close, they don't reveal much fine detail: 4459-pahoeid-4.jpg I haven't seen anything like these at any other site -- or anywhere in the literature, for that matter. I figure they are a form of red algae, similar to Mesophyllum or Peyssonnelia that can be found in modern reefs. I don't know if these Pennsylvanian forms are rare or uniquely preserved in shale. They very well could be the common Archaeolithophyllum, which are normally thoroughly locked in limestone. The small, spaghetti-like strands are unusual as well. They are calcified and completely featureless. Possibilities include sponges, green algae, or traces. They look like ichnofossils... infilled burrows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 On 1/3/2014 at 7:48 AM, pleecan said: They look like ichnofossils... infilled burrows... They are thin sheets, often with attached epifauna (bryozoans and tiny productid brachs). I described them some more in another thread: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/26021-mystery-fossils-pennsylvanian/?p=456794 . Since the fossils and matrix are often very similar in color, it can be hard to get a really good photo of a cross section. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Experts on ichnofossils can be found here https://www.facebook.com/groups/415851935172452/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 They most certainly are not trace fossils. They are found in situ like this: (Matrix is gray; fossil sheets/thalli are maroon; attached epifauna are green) They do resemble certain trace fossils in some cases, but I can't see any way to have a trace lined with an indurated membrane, and then have brachs and bryozoans attach to the bottom side (i.e. sole). The presence of the epifauna tell me these things were once upright or at least arched over the sea floor (or both). Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 Canid molar Canis latrans? Pleistocene?, Kansas River alluvium Kansas City metro Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 Through the scope.... There are some interesting patterns along the fine fractures in the enamel: Other side of the tooth: Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullsnake Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 That is really, really cool! Quite intrepid of you to be on the river now! What, were you ice skating? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missourian Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 On 2/20/2014 at 3:37 PM, Bullsnake said: That is really, really cool! Quite intrepid of you to be on the river now! What, were you ice skating? It's an old find. I asked about the id of the tooth in another thread, and then wondered about the dark lines. So out came the microscope. Speaking of the Kansas River, I'd love to walk the bars again, assuming you can even get down there anymore. Context is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOI Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 (edited) Here are microscopic images of the amber insects in fluorescence mode. I wish I could have more specimens to image. Hope that a huge batch of amber I recently ordered will bring more discoveries. Open to any collaborations as well. Edited April 25, 2021 by KOI 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