frankh8147

Monmouth County Cretaceous IDs' needed

29 posts in this topic

Hello everyone! I need a little help on a few fossils from Big Brook. I'm trying to find out the genus of this ammonite and echinoid. I'm particularly curious about the echinoid, as I haven't heard of them being there. The last appears to be a tooth with some socket attached (under a loop, the root part looked reptilian so im leaning towards plesiosaur not not sure). Thanks in advance! -Frank

IMG_20170217_165115.jpg

IMG_20170420_171247.jpg

IMG_20170420_170959.jpg

IMG_20170420_170742.jpg

2 people finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

IMG_20170420_170814.jpg

IMG_20170420_170834.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for size reference, the 'tooth' is .8 of an inch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cropped and brightened: 

 

IMG_20170217_165115.jpg.801ca9b301c0b4c85e1d7e720b075451.jpg    IMG_20170420_170742.jpg.7b5c306853ddc09ce21003930b338cd3.jpg    IMG_20170420_170814.jpg.d3f9ce69880b385205bea4f96f23264b.jpg   

 

IMG_20170420_170834.jpg.4428bee2d3d93dca26d4fb785df43bb2.jpg    IMG_20170420_170959.jpg.1f2933af479588ac3ac6f4a0935db5a6.jpg     IMG_20170420_171247.jpg.b8585578a33e5628bbbd19a6e05404b4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't assist with IDs, but me thinks your "tooth" is a piece of bone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank the echinoid is awesome!!!!!!  cool find

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for brightening up the pictures fossildude and thanks Brad - I always wanted to find one of those echinoids, I just never thought they were at Big Brook. Caldigger, I was leaning away from bone due to the texture but it can definitely be a possibility because it doesn't match any tooth or bone I have found there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That echinoid is a REAL prize. In 29 years of collecting those brooks I have found only one, many years ago. And I've never even SEEN as ammonite that good from Big Brook! Outstanding work!

3 people finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph Johnson may be able to ID the ammonite. 

Great finds!

Regards,

1 person finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess Placenticeras.

1 person finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That echinoid is the prize for sure!

ive only found them in the Vincenttown lime sands. 

Nice Placenticeras  would be my thought as well based on the sutures and the contour

2 people finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Ralph Johnson may be able to ID the ammonite. 

Great finds!

Regards,

Thanks again fossildude! And thanks Carl, it has been a good year so far; looking forward to digging with you again sometime soon.

1 person finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more question; is there any way to identify what kind echinoid that is and if it is the same type that has been found at Crosswicks? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see sutures well on my phone, nor keel from one view, but you might also compare the ammo with Sphenodiscus as well, esp if the strata is Masstrichtian.  If Campanian, I'd start with Placenticeras.  As for the echinoid, compare with Cardiaster.

2 people finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks uncle siphuncle! I will certainly into those options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 2:06 PM, frankh8147 said:

One more question; is there any way to identify what kind echinoid that is and if it is the same type that has been found at Crosswicks? Thanks!

Also, Ralph Johnson should know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if @PFOOLEY has any thoughts on the ammonite? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

I wonder if @PFOOLEY has any thoughts on the ammonite? 

 

Id have to agree with Carl and Squali...it compares very well with Placenticeras (?placenta)

1 person finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 people finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

:fistbump:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ammonite species might be syrtale? which I've probably misspelled. Placenta is an older species if my memory serves me well. I have seen Hardouinea and Catopygis from Big Brook as far as the echinoid. I don't think this looks like hardouinea.

1 person finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

placenticeratidae: multiplication of auxiliary and adventitious elements of the suture line

Schluter named "Ammonites " syrtalis around 1871-1876

de Grossouvre named Placenticeras syrtalis.

Hyatt probably disagreed with the both of them

Isn't that Hardouinia,BTW?and CATOPYGUS?:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should have stated that all of it may have been misspelled! Am posting from my work computer and using my brain. Not always a good combination;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think P. syrtalis is the older species, as it occurs in the Santonian Tombigbee Sand in Alabama and correlative beds in Georgia.  The prominence of tubercles varies quite a bit, but generally P. syrtalis is more ornate than P. placenta.  Also P. placenta occurs in the Merchantville and the Mt Laurel, such as along the C & D canal.  Overall I lean towards P. placenta for the specimen, though as others noted it would be nice to have a better photo of the sutures before completely excluding Sphenodiscus.

 

Don

2 people finds this informative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're probably right dawg. Fossilworks shows it ranging to the maastrichtian though (85.8-66.043mya). I may have the species wrong but it isn't placenta from my recollection. Have never heard of placenta in the Mt laurel at C&D. Tons of them in the deep cut Merchantville though of course. Placenta is an early campanian taxon as far as I know. I should probably refrain from guessing and just refer folks to the AMNH Neil Landman papers which are available on line. Where's Ralph Johnson when we need him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.