Wyoming Fossil Hunting Adventure--September 2017

[digit]

Thanks. I guess that would make sense as the canines are more fang-like and the incisors are usually found between these for cutting rather than gripping/puncturing.

 

The amount of collective knowledge on this forum astounds me--we have such great members with specialized knowledge in so many facets of the fossil world that it truly is a great resource. Not that I plan on becoming an expert in Pachycephalosaur dentition (at least not this week), but would it be possible to elaborate a little on what features give this away? I know that sometimes, after seeing lots of a particular type of fossil from an area, the search image can be rather subliminal and the identity of a fossil can be declared without any explicit factors other than "I've seen a lot of these". There are some Peace River fossils that I can tell what they are even from badly worn or fragmented pieces because I've seen enough complete specimens that they just have that feel. Whale tympanic bullae are probably a good example of that as I can spot characteristic shapes from the most beat-up specimens. I'm sure that is also how JP was able to identify several of the dinosaur bone fragments we encountered in a process that seems like magic to me.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[digit]

12 minutes ago, Troodon said:

To be more accurate all these shed teeth are Ceratopsian indet. since we do not know what species in the Lance they are from.   Trike spitter is the common term used by everyone.

And I'll use the more conservative term when talking to fossil-savvy folks but probably use the more relatable 'Triceratops (or Trike)' when trying to explain to friends/family as it will conjure up a more familiar image). I'll have to do some research to find out what Ceratopsians were known from the Lance. I always use interesting finds from collecting trips to delve into bits of fossil knowledge and as a result of this ad hoc extension of my (limited) fossil knowledge, I learn about things in the most random of ways (which I enjoy).

 

Thanks again for the comments.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Troodon]

6 minutes ago, digit said:

And I'll use the more conservative term when talking to fossil-savvy folks but probably use the more relatable 'Triceratops (or Trike)' when trying to explain to friends/family as it will conjure up a more familiar image). I'll have to do some research to find out what Ceratopsians were known from the Lance. I always use interesting finds from collecting trips to delve into bits of fossil knowledge and as a result of this ad hoc extension of my (limited) fossil knowledge, I learn about things in the most random of ways (which I enjoy).

 

Thanks again for the comments.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

There are three species of large bodies ceratopsians  are described from the Hell Creek and Lance formations:  Triceratops horridis ,  T. prorsus  and Torosaurus latus.  Tatankaceratops  is an additional one that the jury is still out if its accepted or synonymous with Triceratiops.   There are a couple of additional skulls in the hands of Paleontologists that are claiming "new speices"  time will tell if they are described or found to be one of the above mentioned.    

[digit]

New species description is an interesting process--I'm working with someone to describe a new species of fish I discovered a while back. DNA sequencing of particular stretches of the entire genome is now a common component of writing up a new species (especially if there are closely related species). Describing species from scant fossil remnants is a much trickier process (and one likely to be argued back and forth by the 'lumpers' and 'splitters' within taxonomic circles). From what little I know about paleo-botany things are even more weird. The only experience I have is with the Mazon Creek flora and it blows my mind that various parts of possibly the same (actual) species--leaves, bark, fruits--may all be given different binomial names. Only when a fossil is uncovered that positively unites the various components in an unambiguous connection will the other binomial names be dropped in favor for one species name to unite the various elements of the actual species.

 

I think I'll go see if I can't dig up some online PDF files about the ceratopsians of the Hell Creek and Lance. Should be good 'plane reading'.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Mitchu]

What an epic thread. Congrats on all the finds! 

[digit]

Continuing along with the theme of showing some nicer macro photos of some of the items collected in the field, here are some cephalopod photos.

 

The first are some of the baculite fragments we found at the first site we stopped at with JP just a (relatively) short drive south of Casper. You can see the intricate suture lines that have been used to distinguish species. The third photo does not show the internal cast with the suture lines at all but it does have remnants of the original aragonite from the outer shell (conch). In the proper light there is a bit of iridescence from the nacre (aka "mother of pearl") which is formed by overlapping plates of aragonite diffracting the light into the rainbow of colors. Unfortunately, it was extremely difficult to show under the lights I used to photograph it.

 

       

 

The multi-hued iridescence is shown much better by the aragonite shell (conch) on this small ammonite from one of the concretions that we split at the private ranch site north of Lusk later in the day. The iridescence shows up better when the specimen is wet (helps the light scatter more strongly) but it kept drying out before I could finish the series of 40 stacked photos required to compose this image. Instead, I turned to a light coating of oil to keep the colors bold during photography. I believe this opal-like film is what is referred to as the organic gemstone Ammolite.

 

 

[digit]

Here's a few more from the site where we were finding the dinosaur material. The first is a nice little vertebra that JP identified in the field but I didn't have my notebook with me and so promptly forgot during the excitement of the hunt. I'll have JP look at this one again and I'll add in the proper ID after I hear from him. For a sense of scale it is just under 2.5 cm in diameter (just under an inch).

 

       

 

We also found several ossified tendons (tendons that are calcified to nearly resemble bone) which were used by dinosaurs to strengthen the vertebral column. This is something I'd never known about dinosaurs but now that I'd found some they are of interest to me and I get to read up on them in papers like this:  http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/32/4/652

 

I have a few short pieces that are nicely intact and a couple that are quite fragmented and will be a nice little puzzle to try to restore.

 

   

 

One of the first things we spotted at this site where the shiny black gar scales which stood out in high contrast to the lighter colored matrix. Gar scales preserve better than normal fish scales as they are of a type known as ganoid scales. These scales have a bony base, a layer of dentine (as in teeth), and are topped with a layer of inorganic bone salt called ganoine. We find (much younger) gar scales quite frequently when we are sifting for fossils in the Peace River here in South Florida. They are one of Tammy's favorite items to spot in the sifter and so she had the search image down pat for these while out wandering the novel Cretaceous badlands habitat (as different from standing in the Peace River as you can get).

 

 

[digit]

And here is one final image for now.

 

In addition to picking up some chunks of the "Turritella Agate" (really the freshwater species Elimia tenera), I was also interested in some of the loose agatized shells that had broken free of their matrix. There were literally millions of these scattered around the ground and we tried to pick up some nice samples. I'm going to see if I can find some sort of acid that might etch away the remaining shell material one some of these and expose the glassy silica steinkerns within.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

[ynot]

9 hours ago, digit said:

I'm going to see if I can find some sort of acid that might etch away the remaining shell material

I would not do this as I think the remnant of shell make them look better.

If You do want to clean them You can try muratic acid.

 

Nice looking fossils all around.

[KimTexan]

I have been in the general area which you mentioned on September 19 a couple of times for digs. it was also on a ranch. I was there with my Alma Mater on a dig. My university professor/mentor invites me to a dig every summer that he has directed for 2 decades now.  I don't get to keep any of the bones though, unless I trip over it in the gully wash headed to the porta potty, LOL. If is isn't found in situ they don't want anything to do with it. The area does look so desolate, but there are real buried treasures. The wind is crazy. A couple tents got shredded to pieces one night we were there.  While there I got to find a Nanotyrannus lancensis tooth and quite a number Edmontosaurus annectens bones. The biggest was a 42 inch tibia. Thanks for the adventure and sharing the pics! I really enjoyed them.

[abach292]

Wow Ken, this is a phenomenal post! I bookmarked it so I can re-read through it later. I am trying to plan a trip out there in 2018, to American Fossil Quarry. Glad to see you went home with some great stuff. How did you get it all back home? 

[digit]

16 minutes ago, abach292 said:

How did you get it all back home? 

I never travel without a hand-held digital luggage scale to optimize each suitcase to as close to 50.0 pounds as I can get without going over (I have lots of practice). We were gluttonous enough with tumbler material this time that, even with leaving a box of goodies for a friend to pick up, we still exceeded our limit for 4 suitcases and had to purchase another at the last minute while packing the night before our departure. It helps to fly the only airline (Southwest) that has resisted sticking it to their passengers by charging extra for checked luggage. Once American figured out they could create a source of extra revenue by charging for what had always been free, the other airlines quickly followed this tactic leading to people making more use of carry on bags which now complicates and delays all boarding processes (with the exception of Southwest which continues to do many things differently). Even with Tammy being a Million Miler on American, we still do better flying on Southwest and try to use that airline whenever possible as extra baggage fees really add up on a expedition like this.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[jpc]

On 10/3/2017 at 8:46 AM, Troodon said:

To be more accurate all these shed teeth are Ceratopsian indet. since we do not know what species in the Lance they are from.   Trike spitter is the common term used by everyone.

True.  I am just as guilty as the next guy, even though I have collected some pretty good Torosaurus material over the years.  

 

 

[jpc]

On 10/2/2017 at 9:30 PM, Jesuslover340 said:

T

That being said, the Lance Formation seems to have fauna similar to that of the Hell Creek Formation, which has Borealosuchus, Brachychampsa, and Thoracasaurus. The teeth look a bit long for most Brachychampsa teeth, which are button-like, so you might look into the other two.

Yes, the Hell Creek and Lance faunas are very similar.  And yes B has button teeth... in the back of the mouth.  Pointy teeth like all other crocogators up front.  

 

Ken, the little vertebra is a champsosaur vert.  

 

[Jesuslover340]

5 hours ago, jpc said:

Yes, the Hell Creek and Lance faunas are very similar.  And yes B has button teeth... in the back of the mouth.  Pointy teeth like all other crocogators up front.  

 

Ken, the little vertebra is a champsosaur vert.  

 

I stand corrected then-I just did a quick search on Brachychampsa teeth and all it yielded were photos of extreme 'button-like' teeth. I didn't research it in-depth

Though, realistically, ID-ing crocodiles by their teeth and vice versa is very generalistic and poor form as there's just so much overlap between species and tooth positions. 

[jpc]

17 hours ago, Jesuslover340 said:

 

Though, realistically, ID-ing crocodiles by their teeth and vice versa is very generalistic and poor form as there's just so much overlap between species and tooth positions. 

Yup