janvanwinckel Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Can anybody help me identifying these fossils we found in the north of Riyadh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 From top to bottom: Shells (bivalve?) shells snails stromatoporoid? Sponge? horn corals? snails “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 The bivalves in the first and second photos appear to be either Actinstreon or Ctenostreon. 1 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Are you sure these are Jurassic? The assemblage has a Cretaceous look to me. In particular there are several specimens of rudists, and I am not aware of these occurring in the Jurassic. Don 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 14 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said: Are you sure these are Jurassic? The assemblage has a Cretaceous look to me. In particular there are several specimens of rudists, and I am not aware of these occurring in the Jurassic. Don According to Wikipedia, they are present in the late Jurrasic. Wikipedia is sometimes inaccurate however... “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 I think Wikipedia is getting better over time, as people with the knowledge to do so edit and improve entries, especially science-related entries. The knee-jerk assumption that Wikipedia is useless, which one still hears, is (I think) entrenched in the early days of the project when most entries were brief "first takes". [I know you didn't mean to condemn all of Wikipedia, and it is true that one can occasionally find errors there]. Anyway if it came to a contest between my memory and Wikipedia, I'd suggest not betting on me. I still think the assemblage looks more Cretaceous than Jurassic, though I admit I do not know anything about the geology "north of Riyadh" (what country or continent is that even in? Saudi Arabia? Why are we left to make assumptions about this?). Certainly it would not be out of place if it had come from the Texas Cretaceous. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said: I think Wikipedia is getting better over time, as people with the knowledge to do so edit and improve entries, especially science-related entries. The knee-jerk assumption that Wikipedia is useless, which one still hears, is (I think) entrenched in the early days of the project when most entries were brief "first takes". [I know you didn't mean to condemn all of Wikipedia, and it is true that one can occasionally find errors there]. Anyway if it came to a contest between my memory and Wikipedia, I'd suggest not betting on me. I still think the assemblage looks more Cretaceous than Jurassic, though I admit I do not know anything about the geology "north of Riyadh" (what country or continent is that even in? Saudi Arabia? Why are we left to make assumptions about this?). Certainly it would not be out of place if it had come from the Texas Cretaceous. Don Wikipedia is largely accurate (in fact I did an argumentative essay in school for its use as a reliable source). Based on the geological map, it's on the border of Cretaceous and jurrasic, and I'm not sure of the maps accuracy (Maryland geo maps are often faulty) so it's your pick. It's also (if it's like previous posts by him) at the base of a mountain, which could have multiple stratigraphic layers. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Rudists appeared in the Late Jurassic and became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. As I suggested in your previous topic , the one from there, similar to those from the first picture of this topic, could be Actinostreon (as Roger see it as well). In the second picture are also oysters. The third picture contains gastropod internal molds except the upper one and the right-side one which could be radiolitid (rudist) valve internal molds. In picture five, I can see radiolitid rudist valves (the left one complete, the other ones fragmented and/or internal molds of rudist lower valves). The last picture is the most interesting to me, and I think they are rudists (not convinced if all of them), most likely requieniids, like Toucasia. Similar ones from the Tethyan realm here . " 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...
KCMOfossil Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 9 hours ago, FossilDAWG said: I think Wikipedia is getting better over time 9 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: Wikipedia is largely accurate Good to hear this vote of confidence. As a neophyte, I often turn to Wikipedia for fossil related information. Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 43 minutes ago, KCMOfossil said: Good to hear this vote of confidence. As a neophyte, I often turn to Wikipedia for fossil related information. Russ I use it for pretty much all my information, got me this far. I've found it's more reliable than a lot of other source, especially news reports which are often used as sources. As all sources, it does have its flaws, although most problems are fixed within two days, and inaccuracies in controversial pages are fixed faster than can be seen! “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagebrush Steve Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 59 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: I use it for pretty much all my information, got me this far. I've found it's more reliable than a lot of other source, especially news reports which are often used as sources. As all sources, it does have its flaws, although most problems are fixed within two days, and inaccuracies in controversial pages are fixed faster than can be seen! And it's definitely more accurate than a few of the posts on this forum (though I don't include anybody on this thread, you're all great!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.3a1778fd4fed4623e03d62617112cc00.JPG)
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