wisconsin Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 Found in SW Wisconsin around a small creek bed while metal detecting. If you need any additional pictures let me know. Definitely want to go back and find more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 It does look a bit like an orthoceras. May we see the back side of it. Can you provide the county or nearest town to help determine the formation or age of the rock there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 Sure thing. Hope this is OK. It was Iowa County. I looked at a map earlier when I thought it was a Trilobite, and it is in the area of the map which includes fossilization (I forgot the term they used). But I thought it odd because someone thought it was a nautiloid but I couldn't find anything related to Iowa county, only eastern portions of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 Welcome to the Fossil Forum from Texas. It is all Paleozoic, Ordovician which would be consistent with finding orthoceras. Maybe some others can chime in and provide more info. @minnbuckeye and @GeschWhat live closer to that area than I do. They may have more thoughts on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 Thanks, I appreciate that. Very interesting - appears I have some reading to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izak_ Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 Not an Orthoceras, but definitely some other straight nautiloid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 7 hours ago, Foozil said: Not an Orthoceras, but definitely some other straight nautiloid. Do you have an idea on the age range? Broadly speaking. I want to find more, but of course my interest in fossils is in the age. So just curious, as I saw the Orthoceras period was quite a long time ago but still matches with some records of species in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 I think the place I went might be a gold mine for fossils like this. We found a few more smaller ones and this area reminds me of Jurrasic park with all the decaying material in low lying areas. I might dig in the stinky stuff down to rock and see if there's some cool stuff here. I've also got a place to look a little further west near Crawford county where I've found old shell remnants 400ft up on hills from stream beds. It's worth noting I have no idea what I'm talking about but I love fossils and records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 Age is Ordovician. Here is a link to a chronostratigraphic chart. Ooor I guess it just popped the chart in there. There are 2 geologic phone apps I use. Mancos and RockD. I have an iPhone and I think Mancos only works on iPhones. I could be wrong. Both apps will tell you the formation of the location when you’re there. Both apps have their advantages. I use both. The apps may help with a more specific age once you know the formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 That may be too worn for a good ID but it looks a little like some of the Brachycycloceras species if those ridges are ornamentation rather than septa edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 15 hours ago, BobWill said: That may be too worn for a good ID but it looks a little like some of the Brachycycloceras species if those ridges are ornamentation rather than septa edges. Yeah it's quite hard to tell, and that suggestion also seems similar to it. On the backside it almost seems like some of the rock could come away and reveal something underneath but I'm hesitant to do anything further to it. I have it in some H2O2 at the moment and gonna run it a few minutes in the ultrasonic and see if there's any extra hardened clay on it. Not going to use acid because from my experience muriatic acid (or even acetic acid) is only going to remove anything I might want to save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 Addition: Here's two images of the back side (I assume this is quartz maybe), but it appears there's a layer of hardened sediment covering it. As well, in the first picture you can see some pock marks and a groove along the bottom left half. Should I leave it as is or try take a fine-tipped abrasive pick and remove some of the surrounding sediment? Also, side note: I did send off some pictures to the local University geology lab for ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 Can not tell from these pictures, but I would guess some type of foreign pebble in the matrix. Test the hardness, can it scratch a knife? 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...
wisconsin Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, ynot said: Can not tell from these pictures, but I would guess some type of foreign pebble in the matrix. Test the hardness, can it scratch a knife? I went for some of the sediment on the back and side and it made your traditional sandstone crunching sound but it wore the blade away on my little $2 knife without leaving any 'sand' on my desk. I doubt the steel is hardened, but it peeled steel off the edge regardless. Do you want me to test the 'artifact' I was alluding to being quartz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, wisconsin said: Do you want me to test the 'artifact' I was alluding to being quartz? Yes, that was My intent. Sand is made from many minerals, in order to do a comprehensive hardness test on "sand" You would have to separate the individual grains. 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...
wisconsin Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, ynot said: Yes, that was My intent. Sand is made from many minerals, in order to do a comprehensive hardness test on "sand" You would have to separate the individual grains. Roger that, I felt silly after posting the first part. Even then, went at it with the edge and the tip, I may have scuffed it but if so I basically just roughed it up. The knife again left some silvery residue on the 'artifact'. With that I'm guessing I can assume it's a mineral and not a carbonate? If so, perhaps I can put a little dilute HCL on it and just see if it bubbles vigorously - and if so just neutralize it right away? I think that'd probably be the last test to confirm it's indeed quartz or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, wisconsin said: With that I'm guessing I can assume it's a mineral and not a carbonate? I would say it is most likely quartz. Carbonates are minerals, just a different class from silicates, sulfides, oxides etc. 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...
wisconsin Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, ynot said: I would say it is most likely quartz. Carbonates are minerals, just a different class from silicates, sulfides, oxides etc. Sorry, I'm probably ticking off a lot of professionals with my terminology - I swear I'm not dumb, just not my field of expertise So do you think I should leave it intact as-is? Or maybe use it as a learning experience and see what's underneath? I have a dremel with all sorts of stone and masonry tips that might work for removing <1mm at a time. Also have a big ol buffing wheel that I could try first just to see if I can pretty it up. I just think it might look cooler if I can expose more quartz on the other side, but I'd had to damage the integrity of the fossil. Side note: Do you know if this would be a cast or a mold fossil? I'm not familiar with fossils at all, honestly. But I love to learn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, wisconsin said: Sorry, I'm probably pissing off a lot of professionals with my terminology - I swear I'm not dumb, just not my field of expertise Never said I thought You were dumb. We all lack knowledge in some way or other. That is why I corrected Your statement. 8 minutes ago, wisconsin said: So do you think I should leave it intact as-is? Totally Your choice, but the fossil is what makes this rock interesting, not the (very common) quartz pebble. 9 minutes ago, wisconsin said: a cast or a mold fossil? There have been some very heated discussions about that terminology and what means which on the forum here, still no consensus. I think Yours is the original biologic material altered to rock, so neither would apply. 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...
Kane Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 If it were my choice, I'd leave it as-is. There seems to be not much more to reveal as it is mostly a cross-section, and possibly nautiloid. It is already showing distinct diagnostic features, and if it is cast/mold, you risk removing those features. I think @BobWill's tentative ID is a very good lead. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsin Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 Thanks guys, I appreciate all the input. I think I'll keep it as is for now. Once I hear back from the Geology dept at the University I'll try to update this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 On 8/12/2018 at 4:13 PM, wisconsin said: Sorry, I'm probably ticking off a lot of professionals with my terminology - I swear I'm not dumb, just not my field of expertise I think the majority of us on here are not paleontologist. We are just serious fossil enthusiasts who have been collecting for a while. Many are or have been professionals in other areas though. I’m a healthcare professional and clinical scientist. This is a great place to learn. Everyone is pretty easy going. It is also a pretty safe environment. The moderators keep everyone in line to maintain civility and common respect for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Russell Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Looks like a cross section of a cephalopod to me. I circled what appears to be the siphuncle in this picture. Finding my way through life; one fossil at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.