Went To Northern Mississippi, Got Crabs And Other Stuff...

[Rockin' Ric]

You guys probably think I'd been holding out. It's taken me awhile to get around to finally posting some of my fossil hunt pics, been really busy! I went to Northern Mississippi about 3 months ago with the Alabama Paleontology Society group. I tell ya, I dislike summers down in the deep south and Northern Mississippi is no exception. It was hot! This was my first time visiting this site so I didn't know what to expect other than finding marine material. The fossils pictured are from the Cretaceous Period, Coon Creek Formation.

Found this Muffin Crab as we were about the leave the site.

Not sure what this was, Turritella? I left it because the others were so fragile when picked up.

Lots of Exogyra lying around!

Several Crab claws and legs sections.

[fossisle]

Nice finds

[Uncle Siphuncle]

dude, you left a killer lobster, maybe linuparis! i hope you are just funnin' about leaving it.

[caterpillar]

Yes. No Turritella but certainly Linuparus. Aaaarrggll!!!

[bone2stone]

YOU LEFT IT?????

You left a pretty good linny, too bad about the fragile nature of them.

We find them here in the Eagleford shale and Woodbine formations.

Some better than others.

The ones found in the Eagleford usually are a little more stable.

Jess B.

[crinus]

Nice Finds. I have always loved the Cretaceous stuff from Tenn. and Miss. Question - I notice that you use the term Coon Creek Formation. I googled it and it appears that there are references to it. I have always used " Ripley Formation" and even Bruce Wade used Ripley Formation. Has there been a change that I am not aware of. Is Coon Creek "Fm." a member of the Ripley Formation. Answers and references would be appreciates. I have quite a few fossils from that area and like accuracy in my database.

Crinus

[Fossildude19]

Nice finds, Ric.

Too bad about not collecting that Lobster!

Well, now you know better for next time.

Regards,

[rejd]

Nice finds and thanks for sharing with us. That is too bad about the lobster. Maybe it will still be there next time you go back

[crinoid1]

Gahhhh! I have left a specimen behind like that waaaaay to many times! However, the finds you brought back are very nice as well. Looks like a fun trip!

Gabe

[MB]

Nice finds

[MikeR]

Nice Finds. I have always loved the Cretaceous stuff from Tenn. and Miss. Question - I notice that you use the term Coon Creek Formation. I googled it and it appears that there are references to it. I have always used " Ripley Formation" and even Bruce Wade used Ripley Formation. Has there been a change that I am not aware of. Is Coon Creek "Fm." a member of the Ripley Formation. Answers and references would be appreciates. I have quite a few fossils from that area and like accuracy in my database.

Crinus

The correct usage would be based upon whether you are describing the unit as a geological lithostratigraphic unit or a biostratigraphic unit. In the strictest sense a formation is based upon its lithology and its stratigraphic relationship with other rock units. The presence of fossils are a distinguishing property but not the types or specific species of fossils. From a visual standpoint the unconsolidated sediment found at the road cut in Lumpkin, Georgia attributed to the Ripley Formation is almost indistinguishable from the Coon Creek Formation in Blue Springs, Mississippi over 300 miles away. However the fossil content of the two locations are quite different. Lumpkin is rich in calcitic fauna (Exogyra, Pychnodonte) whereas Blue Springs is a true Laggerstatten. The nature of the fossil content of a particular unit can be described as a member of the formation so I feel that the correct terminology is probably the Coon Creek member of the Ripley Formation. The problem is that in describing fossils from unique sites or specific units, paleontologists in the past have introduced a lot of informal names. It seemed that there wasn't a lot of concern about the names of formations in paleontology as each succeeding author on a fauna would describe earlier author's formational names and the reasons for a new name. About 40 years ago the International Commission on Stratigraphy was formed to tighten up the rules, but earlier informal names will always be with us because it is the publication record. Although I used to be more anal on Formation names within my database, I don't worry about it so much now as long as I am consistent with naming conventions for db queries. I honestly find Chronostratigraphic units i.e. Campanian, Maastrichtian, Piacenzian; more useful. Ultimately the most important aspect of any collection that might eventually go to a museum is not the name you put on a specimen or the formation which you indicate it is from, but the precise location. If you have that any future researcher can figure out the true details.

Mike

[crinus]

The correct usage would be based upon whether you are describing the unit as a geological lithostratigraphic unit or a biostratigraphic unit. In the strictest sense a formation is based upon its lithology and its stratigraphic relationship with other rock units. The presence of fossils are a distinguishing property but not the types or specific species of fossils. From a visual standpoint the unconsolidated sediment found at the road cut in Lumpkin, Georgia attributed to the Ripley Formation is almost indistinguishable from the Coon Creek Formation in Blue Springs, Mississippi over 300 miles away. However the fossil content of the two locations are quite different. Lumpkin is rich in calcitic fauna (Exogyra, Pychnodonte) whereas Blue Springs is a true Laggerstatten. The nature of the fossil content of a particular unit can be described as a member of the formation so I feel that the correct terminology is probably the Coon Creek member of the Ripley Formation. The problem is that in describing fossils from unique sites or specific units, paleontologists in the past have introduced a lot of informal names. It seemed that there wasn't a lot of concern about the names of formations in paleontology as each succeeding author on a fauna would describe earlier author's formational names and the reasons for a new name. About 40 years ago the International Commission on Stratigraphy was formed to tighten up the rules, but earlier informal names will always be with us because it is the publication record. Although I used to be more anal on Formation names within my database, I don't worry about it so much now as long as I am consistent with naming conventions for db queries. I honestly find Chronostratigraphic units i.e. Campanian, Maastrichtian, Piacenzian; more useful. Ultimately the most important aspect of any collection that might eventually go to a museum is not the name you put on a specimen or the formation which you indicate it is from, but the precise location. If you have that any future researcher can figure out the true details.

Mike

Thanks for the explanation. You are correct that the most important information is the location. I have actually been going back to previous localities just to get GPS readings to include in my database.

crinus

[jpc]

Muffin Crab? Is that Avitelmessus? (Ummm... nice lobster tail). !!!

[Rockin' Ric]

Nice Finds. I have always loved the Cretaceous stuff from Tenn. and Miss. Question - I notice that you use the term Coon Creek Formation. I googled it and it appears that there are references to it. I have always used " Ripley Formation" and even Bruce Wade used Ripley Formation. Has there been a change that I am not aware of. Is Coon Creek "Fm." a member of the Ripley Formation. Answers and references would be appreciates. I have quite a few fossils from that area and like accuracy in my database.

Crinus

Crinus, MikeR stated it better than I could... I went with what one of the guys in our group told me, they'd hunted this site many times so I figured they knew it better than I since I was the noob.

[Rockin' Ric]

Muffin Crab? Is that Avitelmessus? (Ummm... nice lobster tail). !!!

Muffin Crab? Is that Avitelmessus? (Ummm... nice lobster tail). !!!

jpc, I was told it was a "muffin crab" by one of the guys in our group.

[Rockin' Ric]

Thanks guys and yes I did leave the "lobster" behind. I've done some stupid things in my life and this is considered one of them! It was a big NOOB mistake and most likely won't repeat in the future. My excuse, I blame the 95 degree, hot humid weather the day the sun fried my brain! I came away with the picture forever reminding me of what I did. I do hope to get back there in the near future!

[Rockin' Ric]

Nice finds and thanks for sharing with us. That is too bad about the lobster. Maybe it will still be there next time you go back

Thanks rejd, this trip was back in August 2014... it's doubtful the lobster will be there, the site is visited by countless groups of people over that period of time.

[erose]

Informal stratigraphic units are sometimes written in lower case or set in quotes. Example: Corbula "bed" of the Lower Member of the Glen Rose Formation. The "bed" is well known but other than it's persistent presence at the top of the Lower Member (a current formal unit) it is not a designated or formal stratigraphic unit.

And thanks to everyone who chimed in on location, location, location!

Nice fossils and at least you got a photo of that puppy.

[Wrangellian]

Thanks guys and yes I did leave the "lobster" behind. I've done some stupid things in my life and this is considered one of them! It was a big NOOB mistake and most likely won't repeat in the future. My excuse, I blame the 95 degree, hot humid weather the day the sun fried my brain! I came away with the picture forever reminding me of what I did. I do hope to get back there in the near future!

Probably all of us have done such NEWB blunders in our time - mine was when I found an echinoid colony on the surface of a boulder (actually it was my mother who spotted it, but she didn't know any more about fossil than I did at the time, just enough to know they were sea urchins, but not how rare or common they are in the area), and she said something like "we're never going to get that out", so we proceeded to pick some of them off individually instead of trying to dig the whole chunk out of the dirt like we should have, and such a job would not have deterred me today in the least, even for lesser fossils, and it probably would not have been as difficult as it was made out to be... But we had no idea we would never find any more of those. That's my biggest fossil-related regret and it happened more than 20 years ago (maybe more than 25).

I've done boneheaded things in the heat and humidity too! Amazing how that sort of thing can affect your judgement.