Help identifying old British fossil collection

[Aurelius]

I have been fortunate enough to obtain a large-ish (well, 25 kilo) collection of fossils. It's an odd mix of genuine specimens and replicas. I have no interest in old replica fossils, and the lot was advertised as basically just that - but I bought the collection suspecting that some would turn out to be genuine, and sure enough, they did.

 

These are the replicas. They vary in their levels of quality, but some are convincing at a glance. The crinoid bottom right is so stunningly detailed that I thought it might be genuine for a moment, but it's just another cast.

 

 

It's a very unusual collection. It contains many old painted plaster replicas (even of exceptionally common specimens, such as Yorkshire dacs) and a number of very interesting genuine fossils, some with ancient collection labels. I would guess that they are mostly British fossils, and oddly for a British collection, there are no ammonites! But given that these fossils were collected a very long time ago, and cover periods that are unusual to me, I'd be very grateful for any help with IDs.

 

It's a shame, every single item in the collection had a numbered label, but the corresponding cataloge was not included.

 

First off, this coral block. Does anybody have any idea as to what it might be, and where it may be from? Might it be worth polishing it? I'm going to tag @TqB, who tends to know these things!

 

Side 1:

Side 2: 

[Aurelius]

I assume these are corals of some kind:

 

The gastropods here look an awful lot like the upper Eocene ones you find at Barton on Sea. A number of different gastropods are included in the collection which appear to be from Barton on Sea, but I can't be sure they're from there. I assume the dark piece is a ray tooth or similar.

 

 

Here's another gastropod. 

 

 

This gastropod is different. Unlike the Barton specimens, this one is filled with solid rock.

 

 

[Aurelius]

A belemnite, what looks like a water-worn crinoid block, and a brachipod(?). I would be very grateful if anyone could help with IDs. The belemnite is rather large (bottom scale is inches).

 

 

Finally for now, a block that I assume is carboniferous, with a rather superb frond. It has a very, very old collection label on the back which is currently illegible. I'd be very please if anybody had any ideas where this came from. There are a number of carboniferous blocks.

 

That's it for now, but I'm sure I'll post some more as I get further through the lot. It's quite exciting to be going through a collection like this.

[TqB]

7 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

I have been fortunate enough to obtain a large-ish (well, 25 kilo) collection of fossils. It's an odd mix of genuine specimens and replicas. I have no interest in old replica fossils, and the lot was advertised as basically just that - but I bought the collection suspecting that some would turn out to be genuine, and sure enough, they did.

 

These are the replicas. They vary in their levels of quality, but some are convincing at a glance. The crinoid bottom right is so stunningly detailed that I thought it might be genuine for a moment, but it's just another cast.

 

 

It's a very unusual collection. It contains many old painted plaster replicas (even of exceptionally common specimens, such as Yorkshire dacs) and a number of very interesting genuine fossils, some with ancient collection labels. I would guess that they are mostly British fossils, and oddly for a British collection, there are no ammonites! But given that these fossils were collected a very long time ago, and cover periods that are unusual to me, I'd be very grateful for any help with IDs.

 

It's a shame, every single item in the collection had a numbered label, but the corresponding cataloge was not included.

 

First off, this coral block. Does anybody have any idea as to what it might be, and where it may be from? Might it be worth polishing it? I'm going to tag @TqB, who tends to know these things!

 

Side 1:

Side 2: 

 

What diameter are the corallites? It does look Lower Carboniferous and Diphyphyllum sp. is my first guess as there's no central columella apparent, although definite diagnosis needs the budding pattern... (so it could also be a diphyphylloid Siphonodendron). Wetting it might help.

[Aurelius]

Thanks Tarquin, that was quick! I've photographed it wet, not sure if these are helpful? Is the corallite the name of each individual 'stem' (in my idiot layperson speak)? If so, they're around 1cm each.

 

[TqB]

36 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

A belemnite, what looks like a water-worn crinoid block, and a brachipod(?). I would be very grateful if anyone could help with IDs. The belemnite is rather large (bottom scale is inches).

 

 

Finally for now, a block that I assume is carboniferous, with a rather superb frond. It has a very, very old collection label on the back which is currently illegible. I'd be very please if anybody had any ideas where this came from. There are a number of carboniferous blocks.

 

That's it for now, but I'm sure I'll post some more as I get further through the lot. It's quite exciting to be going through a collection like this.

 

The belemnite is probably a Cylindroteuthis (should have one furrow, starting at the apex). I think the "brachiopod" is a Pinna bivalve. And the frond looks like a Middle Jurassic one (and the second part of the label says "Oolitic"), Ptilophyllum maybe though I find these confusing... (So also look at Nilsonia, Zamites etc.).

 

 

27 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

Thanks Tarquin, that was quick! I've photographed it wet, not sure if these are helpful? Is the corallite the name of each individual 'stem' (in my idiot layperson speak)? If so, they're around 1cm each.

 

 

Thanks, that helps, I'll stick with what I said. The colony was well broken up and you'd need sections to narrow it down.

[Kosmoceras]

Can I see some more photos of this gastropod please?

 

 

Edit: Looks like a Colus ?curtus from the Red Crag.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kosmoceras

[Aurelius]

Awesome, thanks. I'm really surprised that the plant is Jurassic, I would have put money on it being carboniferous. 

 

As always, I appreciate your assistance.

[Aurelius]

6 minutes ago, Kosmoceras said:

Can I see some more photos of this gastropod please?

 

 

Certainly, here you go:

 

 

[Kosmoceras]

Just now, Aurelius said:

 

Certainly, here you go:

 

 

 

Its from the Red Crag, looks like Colus sp.

 

Also, from the "Barton on Sea" lot, the top right looks like Natica multipunctata (also from the Red Crag). Cannot comment on the other grastopod.

 

[Aurelius]

1 minute ago, Kosmoceras said:

 

 

Its from the Red Crag, looks like Colus sp.

 

Also, from the "Barton on Sea" lot, the top right looks like Natica multipunctata (also from the Red Crag). Cannot comment on the other grastopod.

 

 

Thank you, that's very helpful! There are a number of other red/brown gastropods (including one larger one), so I'll mark them as being from the Red Crag for now.

[TqB]

I think the frond might be Ptilophyllum pectinoides. 

[Aurelius]

13 minutes ago, TqB said:

I think the frond might be Ptilophyllum pectinoides. 

 

Thank you, I think you may be right about that. A bit of googling indicates a probable find spot in Yorkshire. So far, I think that is the star find from this collection, but there are some other plants that I haven't got to yet.

[PFOOLEY]

Pinna sp.

[Peat Burns]

Regarding the casts: There is a possibility that some of them might be from the famous Henry A. Ward casts of ca. 1866.  These were plaster and typically stained dark brown.  If some are Ward's casts, they have historical and perhaps monetary value.  It's worth a bit of checking, I think.  I have some verified ones in my collection and some that i think might be Ward's.  Trying to find photos of verified Ward's casts has been difficult. Here is a link to Google Books with the Catalogue (including drawings) of H.A. Ward's casts:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=KfoAUxeL1RUC&pg=PP5&lpg=PP5&dq=ward's+fossil+casts&source=bl&ots=YopdinvZmh&sig=bMwqKbQzarfRN8Pipk2FAKy48nM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXouuhv6zVAhUSziYKHUuuDokQ6AEITDAL#v=onepage&q=ward's fossil casts&f=false

[Aurelius]

1 hour ago, Peat Burns said:

Regarding the casts: There is a possibility that some of them might be from the famous Henry A. Ward casts of ca. 1866.  These were plaster and typically stained dark brown.  If some are Ward's casts, they have historical and perhaps monetary value.  It's worth a bit of checking, I think.  I have some verified ones in my collection and some that i think might be Ward's.  Trying to find photos of verified Ward's casts has been difficult. Here is a link to Google Books with the Catalogue (including drawings) of H.A. Ward's casts:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=KfoAUxeL1RUC&pg=PP5&lpg=PP5&dq=ward's+fossil+casts&source=bl&ots=YopdinvZmh&sig=bMwqKbQzarfRN8Pipk2FAKy48nM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXouuhv6zVAhUSziYKHUuuDokQ6AEITDAL#v=onepage&q=ward's fossil casts&f=false

 

Wow, that is exciting. The catalogue asks more questions than it answers, in a way. As you say, there are no photos, and there are only drawings of some of the specimens. 

 

Here is the hildoceras bifrons from my lot, versus the illustration in the catalogue:

 

 

The trilobite replicas are particularly nice.

 

 

They are definitely old.

 

Just for fun, since it tells us nothing, here's a cast, next to am original on the right. 

 

 

If anybody is able to shed any light, I'd be fascinated to know more about these replicas. There are over 50 of them, all inverts.

 

Thanks

[JohnBrewer]

6 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

 

Wow, that is exciting. The catalogue asks more questions than it answers, in a way. As you say, there are no photos, and there are only drawings of some of the specimens. 

 

Here is the hildoceras bifrons from my lot, versus the illustration in the catalogue:

 

 

The trilobite replicas are particularly nice.

 

 

They are definitely old.

 

Just for fun, since it tells us nothing, here's a cast, next to am original on the right. 

 

 

If anybody is able to shed any light, I'd be fascinated to know more about these replicas. There are over 50 of them, all inverts.

 

Thanks

Ammos bottom left looks like an Isle of Skye Ludwigia sp. of course @Ludwigia will know! I know the other too but it's on the tip of my tongue. 

[jhw]

Wow! I think even as reproductions these are pretty darn cool and a great collection. Looks like the could well be some of Ward's castings. Apparently he made some very large ones too.

 

http://oceansofkansas.com/wardscat.html

[Ludwigia]

 

38 minutes ago, JohnBrewer said:

Ammos bottom left looks like an Isle of Skye Ludwigia sp. of course @Ludwigia will know! I know the other too but it's on the tip of my tongue. 

 

Hmmm. It's not a Ludwigia. Could be a Harpoceras.

[abyssunder]

The sponge looks like Raphidonema faringdonense, a classic one from Faringdon. Can we see it in details?

[Peat Burns]

2 hours ago, Aurelius said:

 

If anybody is able to shed any light, I'd be fascinated to know more about these replicas. There are over 50 of them, all inverts.

 

Thanks

If my memory serves, there are no maker's marks on the Ward specimens, but I'll try to remember to check the ones I have tonight and make sure.  I'll also try to post photos of the casts I have, as they may end up being the only ones on the Internet to this point and may be useful to somebody in the future .  A lot of these were purchased by colleges and universities for their museums and teaching collections and were probably thrown out with the unfortunate demise of most College museums in the mid to late 20th century.

[Peat Burns]

Here are my casts.  The first three (Cave Bear Skull Cast, Glyptodont Model, and Elephant Bird Egg Model) are all verified original Ward's casts.  Unfortunately, the bear and glyptodont have been painted and are not the original brown stain.  The Elephant bird egg is the original finish.  I was not able to locate any makers mark, although, as you can see, the bottoms are awful scraped up after more than 140 years of abuse.

 

Henry A. Ward cast of Ursus spelaeus skull (painted, not original stain).

 

 

Henry A. Ward model of Glyptodont (painted, not original brown stain)

 

 

Henry A. Ward model of elephant bird egg (original stain)

 

 

The following are casts that may or may not be Ward's casts.  They have not been verified as such but date to the same time period (1860s-1870s)

 

Ammonoid (?) cast - original stain

 

 

 

Trilobite cast (original stain)

 

 

Crinoid cast (painted, not original stain)

 

If anybody knows what taxa these last three are, I would greatly appreciate knowing their identity.  Maybe it will help me determine their maker.

[TqB]

@Peat Burns The crinoid looks like Encrinus liliformis, probably from the Triassic Muschelkalk of Germany.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

Ray tooth looks like Aetobatus arcuatus.

 

Coco

[Aurelius]

14 hours ago, Peat Burns said:

Here are my casts.  The first three (Cave Bear Skull Cast, Glyptodont Model, and Elephant Bird Egg Model) are all verified original Ward's casts.  Unfortunately, the bear and glyptodont have been painted and are not the original brown stain.  The Elephant bird egg is the original finish.  I was not able to locate any makers mark, although, as you can see, the bottoms are awful scraped up after more than 140 years of abuse.

 

Henry A. Ward cast of Ursus spelaeus skull (painted, not original stain).

 

Henry A. Ward model of Glyptodont (painted, not original brown stain)

 

 

Henry A. Ward model of elephant bird egg (original stain)

 

The following are casts that may or may not be Ward's casts.  They have not been verified as such but date to the same time period (1860s-1870s)

 

Ammonoid (?) cast - original stain

 

 

Trilobite cast (original stain)

 

 

Crinoid cast (painted, not original stain)

 

If anybody knows what taxa these last three are, I would greatly appreciate knowing their identity.  Maybe it will help me determine their maker.

 

Wow, that Glyptodon is a thing of beauty! Very difficult to say whether my specimens are from the same manufacturer as your inverts. They are certainly of very similar quality and age. 

 

Thanks for posting, you've given me food for thought there. When I have time, I'll photograph mine properly and post them so that anybody doing any research in the future can find them.

20 hours ago, abyssunder said:

The sponge looks like Raphidonema faringdonense, a classic one from Faringdon. Can we see it in details?

 

Sure, which one is that?