KimTexan Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 I found these in Post Oak Creek near Sherman city limits. The formation within the creek is Alluvium which is Quaternary, Holocene, Cenozoic (in reverse order) I believe. It is surrounded by Austin chalk which is cretaceous. I have no idea what they are. I’m certain I’ve seen a modern version of this while Scuba diving, but for the life of me I can’t remember what it was or where I saw it. They look a little like a barnacle, but not exactly, maybe a tube worm colony? Please let me know your thoughts. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
doushantuo Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Maybe (Semi)balanid cirripeds Link to post Share on other sites
DPS Ammonite Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 You have small Pseudoperna congesta oysters colonizing pieces of thick fibrous inoceramid shells. I have seen similiar fossils in the Austin Chalk. See: http://oceansofkansas.com/fieldguide1.html http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58968-texas-north-sulphur-river-lagerstätte/ 5 Link to post Share on other sites
doushantuo Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 PALAIOS/6-1991 Beneath: Lawrence in MALACOLOGIA/1995) 1 Link to post Share on other sites
KimTexan Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 Now that you mention it I hit the jackpot on those shells. I collected all these and then some in less than 40 min in less than a 40 x 40 area. Some had both valves. Here’s the top on a smaller one.Here is the bottom of it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
DPS Ammonite Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Those oysters are Cameleolopha bellaplicata. See: 2 Link to post Share on other sites
FossilDAWG Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 I am mystified by the title to this thread. Don Link to post Share on other sites
old bones Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 24 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said: I am mystified by the title to this thread. Don Me too... Link to post Share on other sites
Fossildude19 Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 1 hour ago, FossilDAWG said: I am mystified by the title to this thread. Don 44 minutes ago, old bones said: Me too... I've edited it, as "Maine Fossil ID" was rather mystifying. Link to post Share on other sites
FossilDAWG Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Well OK but I still want to know why anyone, and particularly someone from Texas, would think Post Oak Creek is in Maine. I know most kids these days are weak on geography, but this seems extreme. Don 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ynot Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said: Well OK but I still want to know why anyone, and particularly someone from Texas, would think Post Oak Creek is in Maine. I know most kids these days are weak on geography, but this seems extreme. Don PS I think She meant "marine". Link to post Share on other sites
KimTexan Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 5 hours ago, old bones said: Me too... 3 hours ago, FossilDAWG said: Well OK but I still want to know why anyone, and particularly someone from Texas, would think Post Oak Creek is in Maine. I know most kids these days are weak on geography, but this seems extreme. Don Sorry I was up too late last night. Obviously I intended Marine fossil ID. It must have auto-corrected to Maine rather than marine. It is difficult to know how to take your jesting banter since I don’t know any of you. Maybe it is harmless, maybe it’s not. I look a lot younger than I actually am, so unless you’re over 65 I’m probably not much of a kid. I’m definitely old enough to have grandkids. I’m well preserved, but not fossilized yet. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
ynot Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, KimTexan said: It is difficult to know how to take your jesting banter since I don’t know any of you. Maybe it is harmless, With a grain of salt works for Me. I think there was no ill will intended, just poking fun at an obvious mistake. Link to post Share on other sites
KimTexan Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites
KimTexan Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 12 hours ago, doushantuo said: Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between the last 3? It has been many years since I learned my classifications. If it is something related to phylogeny and cladistics I don’t think I ever had to learn that. So I don’t know what cf. and aff. represent. Link to post Share on other sites
old bones Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 1 hour ago, ynot said: With a grain of salt works for Me. I think there was no ill will intended, just poking fun at an obvious mistake. I'm with Tony. Lots of salt! This is a good place to be. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
andreas Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 cf. =confere, means compare to aff.= affinis, means similar to authors do use such abbreviations in cases when fossils differ a little from the typus exemplar of a species. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
abyssunder Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 ... and another link for Pseudoperna congesta on inoceramid valve: 1 Link to post Share on other sites
GeschWhat Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 8 hours ago, KimTexan said: Sorry I was up too late last night. Obviously I intended Marine fossil ID. It must have auto-corrected to Maine rather than marine. It is difficult to know how to take your jesting banter since I don’t know any of you. Maybe it is harmless, maybe it’s not. I can't count how many times I've done things like this...besides you were only off by one lousy "R." Rest assured, comedic banter is always offered with only the best intentions. We are glad you are here. Like @old bones said, it's a good place to be. Link to post Share on other sites
Fishkeeper Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 Excellent batch of finds! I can't vouch for species, but that absolutely looks like what happens when a patch of oysters dies and all the top shells come off. The bottom shells are welded into the rock and look very strange. Don't step on the modern version- they are sharp as heck and sometimes have flesh-eating bacteria on them. Link to post Share on other sites
doushantuo Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 So nobody is willing to put Pseudoperna congesta in quotation marks? Link to post Share on other sites
KimTexan Posted November 6, 2017 Author Share Posted November 6, 2017 Yes, it was quite the find to stumble upon those. The area I got them from was so small and I didn’t even pick them all up. I went looking for sharks teeth, because someone had posted on FB in my area that they had found many sharks teeth a few weeks ago, but I had no idea what part of the creek so I just went to the creek. I didn’t find any sharks teeth, but lots of the oysters. I’ll call them blue oysters, because many of them, the ones where the periostacum has worn away are a deep, rich and lovely shade of blue, especially when wet. Link to post Share on other sites
KimTexan Posted November 6, 2017 Author Share Posted November 6, 2017 Again pardon my ignorance, but why would we put them in quotation marks when it is italicized? What is the significance of Pseudoperna congesta vs “Pseudoperna congesta”? Link to post Share on other sites
doushantuo Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 Because it might be (Crass)ostrea congesta? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
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