boswachter Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Hi all, Here is goes, finally I found a place "alive" enough to talk about fossils. Most other places I saw were just as alive as the fossils they were supposed to talk about. Sohere I went on a trip onto an island in Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. The ground is shale or limestone. Just walking on the "beach" I came across a bunch of fossils or imprints of fossils. Now I tried to find out how old that particular spot was and came up with Ordovician. Here are the images of what I saw: 1: 2: This one looks like a fish, but I doubt is a fish would leave such a lasting imprint 3: This one has my size 12 shoe in it for measure, but I saw the same type of imprint that was at least 5 to 6 feet long. 4: Can anyone point me in the right direction or even identify these fossils for me? Thanks, Henk Edited July 3, 2015 by boswachter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raggedy Man Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) 2 and 3 appear to be cephalopod imprints. 1 and 4 look like ammonites to me, but could also be gastropods(snails). Someone who has an eye better trained should be along soon to either confirm or dismiss my general identification. Either way, you came to the right place! Wonderful finds! Best regards, Paul Edited July 3, 2015 by Raggedy Man ...I'm back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Your beach does speak of life; cephalopods and snails, I think. "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...
abyssunder Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) IMO,#2 looks more like imprints, so I incline to believe that they are trace fossils. I agree with Paul. Edited July 3, 2015 by abyssunder " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_l Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 No Ammonoid if this is Ordovician and it looks like it. The gastropod looks like Maclurites. The cephalopod could be Endoceras because of the size. Howard_L http://triloman.wix.com/kentucky-fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm confident you are looking at the Selkirk Member of the Red River Formation, which is of Late Ordovician age. The same rocks are exposed in the quarries at Garson and Tyndal, where "Tyndal Stone" is produced for building stone. Tyndal Stone is famous for the numerous large fossils of gastropods, cephalopods, and corals. Your first and fourth photos are of a large snail, Maclurites manitobensis. This species is actually the largest known Ordovician snail in the world. The second and third photos are a straight-shelled (orthoconic) nautiloid cephalopod, a distant relative of the modern pearly nautilus. It would be impossible to identify the species from the photos, as the Red River formation contains over 30 described species of cephalopods, and diagnostic characters such as the suture and siphuncle are not shown on the specimen you photographed. However, the Red River Formation is well known for the extremely large size of most of the fossils, a characteristic of the "Arctic Ordovician Fauna" that is found in related rocks in the Arctic (Greenland, Baffin and Meville Islands), at places around Hudson's Bay near Churchill, to the West in the Rocky Mountains, and to the southwest in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming and in the Montoya Formation in southern New Mexico and adjacent Texas near El Paso. Despite the "arctic" element, the fauna is actually tropical as the equator ran through those areas in the Late Ordovician. Although Endoceras did grow to a large size, most of the cephalopods in the Red River Formation are large (even gigantic), Endoceras is present but relatively rare, and Endoceras is characterized by a long straight siphuncle with short septal necks that filled most of the volume of the shell. In fact most Endoceras fossils consist of only the siphuncle, as this ws the most robust part of the shell and the remainder of the shell was more fragile. The specimen you photographed does not show these features, and it is probably not Endoceras. It looks like you have found a good exposure of the Red River Formation. If you get the chance to go back, it would be great if you posted more photos of the fossils. There are also Silurian and Devonian rocks with quite different fossils exposed around the lake. Don 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boswachter Posted July 5, 2015 Author Share Posted July 5, 2015 Thank you all for the identification, from there I can find more information (the web is a beautiful place for that). I will be going back to this place, it's an uninhabited island called Black Bear Island near the narrow part of Lake Winnipeg. I will be posting more pictures of other finds. Thanks again! 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