fifbrindacier Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 Hi, a friend of mine told me he found some Placentyceras in a place where the geologic ages go from the Albian to the Turonian-Santonian, but most of the stratas of that place are Cenomanian. I believe this fossil is not an ammonite, but rather an Oyster or a rudist. I mostly think about Requienia or Toucasia. The geologic file mention the name of Toncasia bayleia. Do you know if Toncasia is a synonym of Toucasia and do you think i'm right thinking this is a rudist ? Lenght : 7 centimeters. "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 Is there a reason to discount the possibility of being an oyster, such as Gryphaea or Exogyra? The ridges look a bit more 3 dimensional than the images I see of the other options. 1 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...
fifbrindacier Posted April 4, 2019 Author Share Posted April 4, 2019 You're right, i've mentioned this possibility in the tags but not in the post, i've edited it. 1 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 Oops! I always forget to look there! 1 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...
DPS Ammonite Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 I cannot see in the pictures where they show if this is an oyster or a rudist that is more like a gastropod. If it is an oyster you should be able to see where the two shells meet or you should be able to see the concave interior of a single shell. If it is a rudist, you should be able to see a small opening with a deeply invaginated interior similar to a snail. You might also see a small shell covering the opening. Please show us the other side (back side) of this: @fifbrindacier Are you able to see and send us a clear photo of where two shells meet if this is an oyster or of the small opening if this is a rudist? What does our rudist expert think? @FranzBernhard 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranzBernhard Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 Thanks, @DPS Ammonite, but I am not an expert. Googling for Toucasia yields some examples, also this one: http://le-coin-a-fossiles.fr/barremien.html 2 hours ago, fifbrindacier said: Do you know if Toncasia is a synonym of Toucasia Its just a typical misreading, n for u. Tried googling for -- toucasia bayleia --, but without quotation marks. Yields an old work, bayleia seems to be the name of a genus or subgenus - ? Oh yes, its a genus within the family Requieniidae. But, sorry, I don´t know what your specimen is . Franz Bernhard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterpillar Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 Take a look at Amphidonte 2 http://www.paleotheque.fr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 21 hours ago, caterpillar said: Take a look at Amphidonte I did, and i agree this fits well. I should have listen to my first impression it was an Oyster. Thank you Caterpillar. "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 Thank you @doushantuo "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, doushantuo said: What paper is this from, Ben? 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...
doushantuo Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Not entirely sure,but it MIGHT be from Klaus Bandel,around 1993 ,in the Mitteilungen des Geologisches-Palaontologisches Instituts/Univ.Hamburg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 2 hours ago, doushantuo said: Not entirely sure,but it MIGHT be from Klaus Bandel,around 1993 ,in the Mitteilungen des Geologisches-Palaontologisches Instituts/Univ.Hamburg MIGHT be or it is not? ...why all the intrigue? LINK The paper is actually by: Mohammad Aqrabawi Amman 1993 Oysters (Bivalvia-Pteriomorphia) of the Upper Cretaceous rocks of Jordan. Palaeontology, Stratigraphy and Comparison with the Upper Cretaceous oysters of Northwest Europe. Mitteilungen aus dem Mineralogisch-Geologischen Institut in Hamburg, 75:1-135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notidanodon Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Definitely exogyra I have one myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 40 minutes ago, will stevenson said: Definitely exogyra I have one myself 2 hours ago, piranha said: MIGHT be or it is not? ...why all the intrigue? LINK The paper is actually by: Mohammad Aqrabawi Amman 1993 Oysters (Bivalvia-Pteriomorphia) of the Upper Cretaceous rocks of Jordan. Palaeontology, Stratigraphy and Comparison with the Upper Cretaceous oysters of Northwest Europe. Mitteilungen aus dem Mineralogisch-Geologischen Institut in Hamburg, 75:1-135 Thank you all ! "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren 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