Comprehensive Texas Fossil Identification Book

[DonFeare]

I am new to fossil hunting and science was never my strong subject. While I love hunting fossils, I am trying to learn how to both preserve/prepare and, identify what I have. I have numerous books; Expert Guide to Finding and Creating a Fossil Collection, Field Guide to Fossils of Texas (which gives scientific names), Complete Encyclopedia of Fossils, Fossils for Amateurs, Texas Fossils, Collecting Fossils. I am looking for a comprehensive book on Texas fossils which shows a color photo of the fossil, followed by the scientific name, i.e. calymene, following by grouping i.e. arthhropod, followed by the informal or common name, i.e. trilobite. That way I can start by identifying by the common name to at least give a starting point. Most of the really comprehensive books seem to provide only the scientific names, which at this point in my learning curve, aren't too useful. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks for any help you can provide.

Don

[JohnJ]

Don, there is not a totally comprehensive book on Texas fossils. However, Finsley's book, A Field Guide to Fossils of Texas (which you have) is as close as you are going to come at this time.

[RyanNREMTP]

Plus I haven't seen any other than Finsley's book that has color photos. And his only has a few plates that are in color.

I take that back the National Aubudon's is color but that is not limited to Texas only.

[RyanNREMTP]

Oh, have you tried any of the DPS Occasional Papers that they put out every now and then?

[DonFeare]

Thanks John and Ryan. I forgot to mention I have the Audubon book as well, but as you said, it isn't limited to Texas. I'll look at DPS papers. Sorry for the bother. There is so much to learn and it is somewhat overwhelming for someone who doesn't speak science or paleo fluently.

Don

[RyanNREMTP]

Oh I know the feeling. I'm the same way about trying to pronounce some of the names of fossils. It usually ends with it being called thatthingthere.

[tmaier]

The general purpose guide books are just trying to show you the span of families, and not really adequate to allow you to classify down to the species level. Once you recognize some features that allow you to find a node point on the tree of life for your specimen, then you have to start cooking it down to achieve the full classification.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=phylogenetic+classification&gbv=1&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ei=7EIHVMPJLYfJggTBmoCQCQ&ved=0CBEQvwU

And very often you run into a dead end as you drill down through the classification, leaving you at a family or genus name, and never finding the species. In that case you say "Mygenus (sp?)", meaning species unknown. Or you would say "Family Myfamily". Or if you know the genus, and have a good guess on the species, then you do this "Mygenus (this_species?)".

All to often people reach too far in their attempts to finish the classification and end up declaring a genus or species without all the proofs and without using question marks to show that it is not proven. This leads to confusion when another person comes along and bases their classification off of yours. There is a ripple effect of erroneous classification.

Anyway, take a long view when you read the field guides. Look at the general features of the pictures and read the classification criteria of the specimen. That is where the Audubon book is very good, with taxonomical descriptions. You may not find that exact species in your area, but the book is proving the definitions of the nodes of the tree.

So don't go through the guide book looking for an exact match of your fossil. Look for things that have characteristics similar to it, and then move a node or two backwards and start searching the internet for that genus or family.

[Wrangellian]

Mygenus sp. and Mygenus cf. thisspecies is sufficient for unknown species and guessed species, respectively.

[tmaier]

Mygenus sp. and Mygenus cf. thisspecies is sufficient for unknown species and guessed species, respectively.

True, I've just been using the question mark for so long it is habit.

[Wrangellian]

True, I've just been using the question mark for so long it is habit.

Me too actually! (but not brackets)

[tmaier]

One reason I use ? is because I also use it while programming, and it is a flag for me to return to some section of code that seems a bit dodgy. Same thing with the fossil, he's a bit dodgy and needs more work.

[RyanNREMTP]

Can you imagine how big that book would be?

[tmaier]

I saw a critique of a fossil identification book on Amazon in which the reviewer stated the book was useless because it didn't contain all the fossils. He gave it two stars out of five, which is a really bad condemnation of a good book.

That's why I kind of went long with this subject of what the books are for. After reading that review on Amazon I also started a thread about what are good books and what do you do with them.

Amateurs need to get familiar with working the tree and understanding the branches. Otherwise it becomes just a very confusing challenge of looking at the individual leaves of the tree.

Also, more tips...

- Study the geology and biota of the strata you are hunting in. If you can find the formation names, you have a great tool for more internet searching.

- If you are finding a lot of critters from a specific group (brachs, gastropods, etc.) then do a general study of their anatomy and terms for the anatomy. You probably won't remember all of it, but don't worry about that, some of it will flash back to you when you are looking at the fossils.

[erose]

Not color, but still one of the most comprehensive identification references: Index Fossils of North America, Shimer & Shrock, 1944

[BobWill]

The longer you collect the less general information like "trilobite" or "brachiopod" or even common names like "denture clam" you will need. Also notice that fossils are always grouped by large (and usually smaller) general categories even if these names are omitted for space reasons.