Ricky’s Mazon Creek thread

[Wrangellian]

4 hours ago, gieserguy said:

@Wrangellian I’ll have to find that thread, I’m very curious to see what you have!

And thank you for the tips, I’m mostly just using an old ikea lamp and my iPhone for the pictures. But for the jellies at the beginning, it was with indirect sunlight in my garage to get those details to pop! The jellies are especially hard because they’re just texture, not color. 

Yes, it seems texture (feeble tho it may be) is the main part of a Mazon fossil, the color less so.

I get similar results to yours with any of the indoor setups I try. If I put it too close to the light, the side of the fossil nearest to the light is overlit, and the far side underlit. I can't win! Going outside for sunlight, and adjusting the fossils' angle to it instead of vice versa, is a pain but it's the only thing that works for me.

[gieserguy]

6 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Yes, it seems texture (feeble tho it may be) is the main part of a Mazon fossil, the color less so.

I get similar results to yours with any of the indoor setups I try. If I put it too close to the light, the side of the fossil nearest to the light is overlit, and the far side underlit. I can't win! Going outside for sunlight, and adjusting the fossils' angle to it instead of vice versa, is a pain but it's the only thing that works for me.

Very true! I guess angled sunlight is the way to go...

[deutscheben]

On 5/15/2019 at 5:47 PM, gieserguy said:

Another unidentified specimen, and I’m not even sure what phylum to start with

 

Thanks for sharing your collection! It's always great to see what other Mazon collectors have turned up. I'm relatively new to collecting in the area, with about 3-4 years of experience, but there are some other veteran folks on here with museum-quality Mazon collections. 

 

It's hard to tell from the picture above, but the shape of the fossil is a little reminiscent of a partial doubled-back Tully Monster:

 

 

 

Again, I'm relatively new to this and the picture is not clear, but I think it would be worth trying to get a pro to take a look at it(especially since you will be working at the Field Museum anyway!).

[gieserguy]

4 hours ago, deutscheben said:

Thanks for sharing your collection! It's always great to see what other Mazon collectors have turned up. I'm relatively new to collecting in the area, with about 3-4 years of experience, but there are some other veteran folks on here with museum-quality Mazon collections. 

 

It's hard to tell from the picture above, but the shape of the fossil is a little reminiscent of a partial doubled-back Tully Monster:

 

 

 

Again, I'm relatively new to this and the picture is not clear, but I think it would be worth trying to get a pro to take a look at it(especially since you will be working at the Field Museum anyway!).

Honestly I’ve thought about that possibility too. And that’s very true, I’ll definitely have to try to find the Mazon expert here!

[Mark Kmiecik]

@Nimravis I don't think it's a tullymonster -- from what I see in the photo it's some type of stain or mineralization. It may have started as something organic, but ended up not resembling what it may have been. Many times the organic material that triggered the formation of the iron siderite concretions may have been something like sap or other "slime" that left nothing discernible when fossilized.

[Nimravis]

1 hour ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

@Nimravis I don't think it's a tullymonster -- from what I see in the photo it's some type of stain or mineralization. It may have started as something organic, but ended up not resembling what it may have been. Many times the organic material that triggered the formation of the iron siderite concretions may have been something like sap or other "slime" that left nothing discernible when fossilized.

I agree- I do not see that being a Tully. There are so many pieces that look like something, but are not.

[gieserguy]

@Mark Kmiecik @Nimravis I think you’re both probably right- we love pareidolia! I figured it was probably nothing, but it’s always fun to hope haha! But there really is no better feeling than cracking open a good nodule and seeing a real, undeniable fossil in there!

[Wrangellian]

16 hours ago, deutscheben said:

Thanks for sharing your collection! It's always great to see what other Mazon collectors have turned up. I'm relatively new to collecting in the area, with about 3-4 years of experience, but there are some other veteran folks on here with museum-quality Mazon collections. 

 

It's hard to tell from the picture above, but the shape of the fossil is a little reminiscent of a partial doubled-back Tully Monster:

 

 

 

Again, I'm relatively new to this and the picture is not clear, but I think it would be worth trying to get a pro to take a look at it(especially since you will be working at the Field Museum anyway!).

Okay, now those are some good examples of Mazon fossils where color is the discerning feature!

[Mark Kmiecik]

12 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Okay, now those are some good examples of Mazon fossils where color is the discerning feature!

True -- but in addition to that the first one also has these features that are either three-dimensional and/or preserved hard parts of this animal: claws, eye stalk and eyes, body segmentation, and others depending on the degree of preservation. These are the features that baffled researchers for so long.

[Wrangellian]

Oh yes - I didn't mean to say it's either one or the other!

Stupendous fossils.

[Mark Kmiecik]

Since you'll be interning at the Field Museum, get downstairs and view the MC material they have (tons of it, literally), and you will get quite good at being to identify what may actually be a fossil as opposed to what is only suggestive of being one. A week or two of study will make you pretty much an expert in telling the difference. Identifying species will take a bit longer. The two definitive works, that I'm last aware of, regarding MC fauna and flora are: The Fossil Fauna of Mazon Creek , Shabica & Hay, and The Mazon Creek Fossil Flora, Wittry. If you really get addicted to MC fossils these will be indispensable. The hard copies are pricy, unless you can find used, but the illustrations are better than the paperback. Both are generously illustrated and contain additional information helpful to ID your specimens.

[gieserguy]

@Mark Kmiecik I’m not sure if I’ll have any access to those fossils downstairs, as I’m in the vertebrate prep lab upstairs. But it never hurts to ask!

I’ve got paperbacks of both Wittry’s flora and fauna books. I didn’t know that there would be a difference between the paperback and hardcover except for the cover itself. 

I believe we also have one of his less-extensive draft versions of one the books lying around somewhere, I’ll have to try to find that. 

[Mark Kmiecik]

5 minutes ago, gieserguy said:

@Mark Kmiecik I’m not sure if I’ll have any access to those fossils downstairs, as I’m in the vertebrate prep lab upstairs. But it never hurts to ask!

I’ve got paperbacks of both Wittry’s flora and fauna books. I didn’t know that there would be a difference between the paperback and hardcover except for the cover itself. 

I believe we also have one of his less-extensive draft versions of one the books lying around somewhere, I’ll have to try to find that. 

Ask. Just tell the curator of collections that you would like to see them to become more acquainted the MC flora and fauna. If you show a genuine interest, I doubt you would be denied.