What Are These Fragments?

[BLT]

I have previously posted pics from this large hash plate, but didn’t post any of the areas pictured here. (I thought it was just part of the sediment.) Now I’m wondering if these could actually be fragments of the trilobits which were previously identified in other areas of this hash plate. Or possibly some type of thick shell? 

[Kane]

What is the size of the piece? Judging by these images, I'm not seeing trilobite morphology in this one... 

[BLT]

I am also wondering which type of fossil this would be? It wasn’t as visible the last time I took pictures of this hash plate. 

[BLT]

4 minutes ago, Kane said:

What is the size of the piece? Judging by these images, I'm not seeing trilobite morphology in this one... 

Oops! I neglected to post the size.  Here is another picture of the first image. Do you think it could be a thick shell fragment?

[BLT]

[Nimravis]

I am getting a bryozoan feel to some of these, but wait for others to chime in.

[BLT]

Just now, Nimravis said:

I am getting a bryozoan feel to some of these, but wait for others to chime in.

Gotcha. Thanks!

[Nimravis]

Tracey,

 

 When you state that you find your fossils in your backyard, are you literally talking about the backyard of your house? Or is it in an area that’s near your house that you consider your backyard? If you have a chance sometime, I as well as I believe others would like to see a picture of the area that you’re collecting these from so we can see what the exposure looks like. I don’t recall if you ever posted one in the past if you have sorry but I don’t recall it.

[Kane]

I'm somewhat with Nimravis on the bryozoan call... although I'm not seeing any zooecia/pores or monticules. The undulation that seems to follow the contour of the sediment would seem to put a shell identification in doubt.

[Nimravis]

Just now, Kane said:

although I'm not seeing any zooecia/pores or monticules.

Kane, I agree and is why I am only getting a “feel” of bryozoan.

[BLT]

1 minute ago, Nimravis said:

Tracey,

 

 When you state that you find your fossils in your backyard, are you literally talking about the backyard of your house? Or is it in an area that’s near your house that you consider your backyard? If you have a chance sometime, I as well as I believe others would like to see a picture of the area that you’re collecting these from so we can see what the exposure looks like. I don’t recall if you ever posted one in the past if you have sorry but I don’t recall it.

Yes, I am literally referring to my own backyard and the creek which borders it. When we purchased our home, a previous owner had made stone pathways leading from our house, to and around our barn. These rocks are full of the little fossils I often post. There were also stone walls around various flower beds and the creek, along with rock gardens. I’ve learned that the stones (geodes) from our front yard were brought here from a neighboring county. I believe the others originated from here because I find similar (albeit much smaller) fossils in the creek after each heavy rain. I will post pictures in a bit.  

[BLT]

7 minutes ago, Kane said:

I'm somewhat with Nimravis on the bryozoan call... although I'm not seeing any zooecia/pores or monticules. The undulation that seems to follow the contour of the sediment would seem to put a shell identification in doubt.

Alright, thank you!

[ynot]

I think the first piece shows a mineral filled crack. (side view).

The other piece looks like part of a snail.

[BLT]

10 minutes ago, ynot said:

I think the first piece shows a mineral filled crack. (side view).

The other piece looks like part of a snail.

Gotcha. Thanks!

[Paciphacops]

The first set of 4 photos show what are probably dolomitized areas in the rock, with a couple of small brachiopods. Dolomitic "stringers" are common in the St. Louis limestone. The object in the 5th photo has lines on the right that look like septa separating the chambers of a cephalopod.

[BLT]

5 minutes ago, Paciphacops said:

The first set of 4 photos show what are probably dolomitized areas in the rock, with a couple of small brachiopods. Dolomitic "stringers" are common in the St. Louis limestone. The object in the 5th photo has lines on the right that look like septa separating the chambers of a cephalopod.

Thanks!  Another fossil on this same hash plate which I had previously posted was identified as a cephalopod, so that would make sense. 

[BLT]

@Nimravis These are pictures of the creek bordering my property. Part of it is very narrow and overgrown. It’s more like a ditch with only a trickle of water flowing on most days....until we have heavy rains. Other areas usually remain a few feet deep. I’m continually amazed by the amount of small fossily rocks which I find after these rains. On most days, I spend hours out there, just poking around.  

[BLT]

[BLT]

I’ve recently found these little fragments.

[BLT]

This rock was dug out of the creek earlier today. It had a small area which I am curious about. There are a lot of larger rocks similar to it in the creek. 

[BLT]

It had another area on the bottom which I am also curious about. 

[Walt]

10 minutes ago, BLT said:

It had another area on the bottom which I am also curious about. 

probably benign, but I'd have it checked 

[BLT]

3 minutes ago, Walt said:

probably benign, but I'd have it checked 

Oh dear. It would appear that your sense of humor is as warped as my own! 

[Innocentx]

Have you traveled up(if allowed) any of the tributaries to this creek? There might be exposures to find where fossils are still in the layers and less water worn. Take a hammer.

[FranzBernhard]

1 hour ago, BLT said:

It’s more like a ditch with only a trickle of water flowing on most days

I don´t think so! Thats a really lovely creek - with the addition of good fossil potential. Best of all - its on your porperty, you can easily enyoy it every time you want, no driving necessary. You are a lucky woman, indeed!

Franz Bernhard