aek Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 It was 50 degrees on Sunday so I decided to get out to the Silurian Sugar Run formation to look for some trilobites. I checked out some out small outcrops that I've never investigated before, but no luck. It was starting to get late so went to an old spot that I haven't been to in a long time. The rocks in this formation are very difficult to break open and generally need a sledge hammer, so the best method is to look for "promising-looking" rocks and bring them home to break open. This is what I found: Tiny Calymene Gravicalymene celebra Cybantyx cuniculus double cephalons Group shot Most are pretty beat up but a very enjoyable daytrip. Thanks for looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I like the coloration! Nice finds, glad you had a good time. I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixgill pete Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Fantastic. Beautiful bugs. Thanks for sharing them with us. Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt behind the trailer, my desert Them red clay piles are heaven on earth I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers May 2016 May 2012 Aug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 Oct 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Nice! When was Flexicalymene celebra moved to Gravicalymene? Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Very nice! Very happy you had a good day, shame the new places proved fruitless. Still, a good little haul. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xDiamondX Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 At first I thought you meant 50 degrees celsius and I was like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 37 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said: When was Flexicalymene celebra moved to Gravicalymene? It has been incorrectly referred to as Flexicalymene (Ordovician) when it should have been Calymene celebra. Here is the paper that reassigned it to Gravicalymene celebra. Thaleops is also restricted to the Ordovician. Kleffner, M.A., Cramer, B.D., Brett, C.E., Mikulic, D.G., Kluessendorf, J., & Johnson, T. (2012) Lower Silurian of western Ohio - The case of the disappearing Dayton, and unique Midwestern co-occurrence of pentamerid brachiopods with the Gravicalymene celebra Trilobite Association in the Springfield Formation. Geological Society of America, Field Guide, 27:1-18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monica Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Those are some nice-looking trilobites!!! I, too, love the colouration - it's so different from the usual blacks, greys, and browns - I'm definitely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Thanks Scott. Rolf Ludvigsen lists it as Flexicalymene celebra in the ROM publication on Ontario trilobites. He lists other species as Calymene, such as Calymene breviceps, so I assumed his use of particular generic names was not simply casual but was based on his opinion about the correct placement of the species. I can understand why there would be confusion or disagreement, though, as internal molds can look so different from fossils that preserve the shell. Is it usual to include taxonomic revisions in a field guide? No doubt I am being persnickety but I would not normally look there for detailed taxonomic re-evaluations. Do you happen to have a pdf of that publication? Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said: Is it usual to include taxonomic revisions in a field guide? No doubt I am being persnickety but I would not normally look there for detailed taxonomic re-evaluations. Do you happen to have a pdf of that publication? Whatever the reasons for choosing that journal, I will happily defer to Mikulic and Brett. PM sent! Quote "More recently, this trilobite has been identified as Calymene celebra, Flexicalymene celebra, Apocalymene celebra, Sthenarocalymene celebra, and Gravicalymene celebra." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aek Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, piranha said: It has been incorrectly referred to as Flexicalymene (Ordovician) when it should have been Calymene celebra. Here is the paper that reassigned it to Gravicalymene celebra. Thaleops is also restricted to the Ordovician. Kleffner, M.A., Cramer, B.D., Brett, C.E., Mikulic, D.G., Kluessendorf, J., & Johnson, T. (2012) Lower Silurian of western Ohio - The case of the disappearing Dayton, and unique Midwestern co-occurrence of pentamerid brachiopods with the Gravicalymene celebra Trilobite Association in the Springfield Formation. Geological Society of America, Field Guide, 27:1-18 Ok, I wasn't sure about Thaelops except that I have an almost identical specimen from the Ordovician. What is it called? Also, is Bumastus still valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, aek said: Ok, I wasn't sure about Thaelops except that I have an almost identical specimen from the Ordovician. What is it called? Also, is Bumastus still valid? It looks similar to Cybantyx (=Bumastus) cuniculus: Here is the list of Sugar Run fauna from: Mikulic, D.G. (1999) Silurian trilobite associations in North America. In: Boucot, A.J., & Lawson, J.D. (eds.) Paleocommunities - a case study from the Silurian and Lower Devonian. World and Regional Geology, 11:793-798 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Wow! Cool finds! Not bad for a quick trip. Regards, Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM - APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I have to say I prefer Gravicalymene to Sthenarocalymene. At least I can pronounce Gravicalymene. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aek Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 10 hours ago, piranha said: It looks similar to Cybantyx (=Bumastus) cuniculus: Here is the list of Sugar Run fauna from: Mikulic, D.G. (1999) Silurian trilobite associations in North America. In: Boucot, A.J., & Lawson, J.D. (eds.) Paleocommunities - a case study from the Silurian and Lower Devonian. World and Regional Geology, 11:793-798 Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aek Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 Thanks for the comments everybody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrguy54 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Great finds...especially for it being in winter. One of them looks to be a "roller" rather than prone...2nd picture. How complete is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimB88 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Wow! Nice bugs! Well worth the effort! Is the matrix chert or very hard Dolomite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aek Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 @hrguy54 It's not complete, cut in half unfortunately, but it's probably in the molting position like most of the Calymene's found in the Sugar Run. @JimB88 It's a very hard dolomite, tough to work with. I try to break it just right with a 4 pound sledge and chisel to expose fossils. If it doesn't break right, other methods of prep beyond that are worthless.. at least for me at this time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Looks like You had a good trip with some nice bugs. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-fossils Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Some very nice colors on these trilobites!!! Great finds! Max Derème "I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day." - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier Instagram: @world_of_fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 These are gorgeous love the colors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 2:34 PM, FossilDAWG said: Thanks Scott. Rolf Ludvigsen lists it as Flexicalymene celebra in the ROM publication on Ontario trilobites. He lists other species as Calymene, such as Calymene breviceps, so I assumed his use of particular generic names was not simply casual but was based on his opinion about the correct placement of the species. I can understand why there would be confusion or disagreement, though, as internal molds can look so different from fossils that preserve the shell. Is it usual to include taxonomic revisions in a field guide? No doubt I am being persnickety but I would not normally look there for detailed taxonomic re-evaluations. Do you happen to have a pdf of that publication? Don For that reason all of my catalog entries include a field for "Identification Reference(s)." That way I keep note of which field guide, paper or other source I used to make the identification. If I get a better specimen or something else brings the original identification into question I can go back and see why I called it this not that. Another thing I like to point out, especially to the newbies, is that generally if you can nail the species you are golden. For example I still have older catalog entries labeled Platystrophia ponderosa. Newer stuff is now labelled Vinlandostrophia ponderosa, but the old ones are still a perfectly valid ID since it is the same critter either way...a rose by any other name... For the most part species names stay valid as they are reassigned to new or different genera. So P. ponderosa = V. ponderosa, no questions asked. BUT then as some of you who collect in the Paleozoic of the Midwest know, unfortunately, there were some early authors who gave the same "species" name to specimens in similar groups such as trilos and brachs so that it can be confusing if you don't have the full taxonomic "score card". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyouthinkhesaurusRex Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Very cool find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deutscheben Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Very cool finds! I did my first collecting from the Racine/Sugar Run dolomite last year. I am still trying to get the hang of using the sledge and chisels, though- I managed to smash a couple of promising Calymene trilobites when trying to prep them out of the rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.