Uncle Siphuncle Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 What the heck is this thing? This is the most diagnostic view...it is roughly round in cross section and other views don't add much. Walnut fm, Lower Cretaceous marine, Bell Co., TX Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crinoid Queen Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 What the heck is this thing? This is the most diagnostic view...it is roughly round in cross section and other views don't add much. Walnut fm, Lower Cretaceous marine, Bell Co., TX straight cephalopod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njfossilhunter Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Internal mold of a cephalopod???????? TonyThe Brooks Are Like A Box Of Chocolates,,,, You Never Know What You'll Find. I Told You I Don't Have Alzheimer's.....I Have Sometimers. Some Times I Remember And Some Times I Forget.... I Mostly Forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Sounds logical, but I've not seen any orthocone cephalopods in the Kwa. Also, I can't see a siphuncle in section. Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 danwoehr..... It does look almost identical to the section of a bellemnite called the phragmacone.... mybe google it and compare... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It certainly appears(how is that for an oxymoron?) to be a nautiloid, however(forgive my ignorance), I don't think that there were orthoconic nautiloids during the Cretaceous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 It certainly appears(how is that for an oxymoron?) to be a nautiloid, however(forgive my ignorance), I don't think that there were orthoconic nautiloids during the Cretaceous. "certainly appears" Now that's what I'm talking about. my other fave is, "I don't know anything about this but...." So without further ado, I don't know anything about this, but it certainly appears to be an external mold of a baculite. Of course I'm offering my definite opinion without knowing what the Kwa is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traviscounty Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 There are some, baculite-like,not well defined, sutures? Never mind, I say it's a clam-hole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 There are some, baculite-like,not well defined, sutures? Never mind, I say it's a clam-hole! Wait I change my mind - Bison, just Bison. Tracer - your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 danwoehr..... It does look almost identical to the section of a bellemnite called the phragmacone.... mybe google it and compare... I think Terry has it. It appears to be an internal cast of a section of Belemnitid phragmocone. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Well I've collected Texas pretty extensively and although this thing isn't pretty, its a first for me. (Hey Smilodon - adopting the shorthand employed by the Geologic Atlas of Texas map series, K= Cretaceous, wa=Walnut formation, Lower Albian) Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Wait I change my mind - Bison, just Bison.Tracer - your thoughts? my thoughts are that it is readily apparent to me that "certainly appears" is neither oxymoronic nor inappropriate when used as a qualifier in this venue. knowledge to me exists in a continuum ranging broadly from "no clue" to "proven until disproven". i prefer to have a plethora of verbiage with which to express where i am on that continuum when stating something, just in case something i've said might accidently matter. but this is rhetorical rhetoric, because it doesn't. i'm fairly certain of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crinoid Queen Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 I think Terry has it. It appears to be an internal cast of a section of Belemnitid phragmocone. http://www.answers.com/topic/belemnoidea-1 they were in the cretatous too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Sent your pic off to my paleontologist friend, Neal. He says "It so looks like a straight amminoid. Lots of these get filled in with mud and do not show a siphuncle. If you had more than one, then split it in half long ways and across to look for chambers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Sounds logical, but I've not seen any orthocone cephalopods in the Kwa. Also, I can't see a siphuncle in section. That would be because there were no orthocone cephalopods in the Kwa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 It certainly appears(how is that for an oxymoron?) to be a nautiloid, however(forgive my ignorance), I don't think that there were orthoconic nautiloids during the Cretaceous. You are correct. There were no orthoconic nautiloids during the Cretaceous. But this is not an orthoconic nautiloid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 http://www.answers.com/topic/belemnoidea-1 they were in the cretatous too Sorry Terry, Harry ,and Crinoid Queen. Dan's specimen is so not a phragmocone cast. Here is a very well preserved and essentially complete belemnite. and here is what a cast looks like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Sent your pic off to my paleontologist friend, Neal. He says"It so looks like a straight amminoid. Lots of these get filled in with mud and do not show a siphuncle. If you had more than one, then split it in half long ways and across to look for chambers." I give you baculites from Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 I think Terry has it. It appears to be an internal cast of a section of Belemnitid phragmocone. 'Smilodon' may be correct. Rather than an internal cast of a Belemnitid phragmocone, it may be the steinkern from the alveolus of a Belemnitid guard. Hibolites is one possibility. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 It certainly appears(how is that for an oxymoron?) to be a nautiloid, however(forgive my ignorance), I don't think that there were orthoconic nautiloids during the Cretaceous. That's very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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