North Texas Fossils

Correction (May 6, 2024):
 
I would more accurately list the insects in this piece as being within the Pseudomyrmecini tribe; modern distribution of its members would possibly suggest a Tetraponera sp. rather than Pseudomeyrmex.
 
Also, after conferring with the seller of the amber itself, this material was mined from lignite deposits associated with the Gumai, Air Benakat, and Muara Enim Formations of the South Sumatra Basin: these range in age from 30-6.3 Ma.

Correction (May 6, 2024):
 
I would more accurately list the insects in this piece as being within the Pseudomyrmecini tribe; modern distribution of its members would possibly suggest a Tetraponera sp. rather than Pseudomeyrmex.
 
Also, after conferring with the seller of the amber itself, this material was mined from lignite deposits associated with the Gumai, Air Benakat, and Muara Enim Formations of the South Sumatra Basin: these range in age from 30-6.3 Ma.

Correction (May 6, 2024):
 
I would more accurately list the insects in this piece as being within the Pseudomyrmecini tribe; modern distribution of its members would possibly suggest a Tetraponera sp. rather than Pseudomeyrmex.
 
Also, after conferring with the seller of the amber itself, this material was mined from lignite deposits associated with the Gumai, Air Benakat, and Muara Enim Formations of the South Sumatra Basin: these range in age from 30-6.3 Ma.

Correction (May 6, 2024):
 
I would more accurately list the insects in this piece as being within the Pseudomyrmecini tribe; modern distribution of its members would possibly suggest a Tetraponera sp. rather than Pseudomeyrmex.
 
Also, after conferring with the seller of the amber itself, this material was mined from lignite deposits associated with the Gumai, Air Benakat, and Muara Enim Formations of the South Sumatra Basin: these range in age from 30-6.3 Ma.

Correction (May 6, 2024):
 
I would more accurately list the inclusions (workers and alates) in this piece as being within the Pseudomyrmecini tribe; modern distribution of its members would possibly suggest a Tetraponera sp. rather than Pseudomeyrmex.
 
Also, after conferring with the seller of the amber itself, this material was mined from lignite deposits associated with the Gumai, Air Benakat, and Muara Enim Formations of the South Sumatra Basin: these range in age from 30-6.3 Ma.

Correction (May 6, 2024):
 
I would more accurately list this specimen as being within the Pseudomyrmecini tribe; modern distribution of its members would possibly suggest a Tetraponera sp. rather than Pseudomeyrmex.
 
Also, after conferring with the seller of the amber itself, this material was mined from lignite deposits associated with the Gumai, Air Benakat, and Muara Enim Formations of the South Sumatra Basin: these range in age from 30-6.3 Ma.

Sorry for my late response. That's a good observation. The Cockfield Fm. that hosts this amber belongs to the Claiborne Group, which encompasses a great number of different Formations.

Thats the fun thing! the Iola formation as a whole is severly lacking in reported online material, infact the only good source is the KGS website, an old website, and finds reported by @Missourian. 
 
Here is the website showing the teeth from the Raytown including a similar looking Peripristis. Sadly the locations on google Earth were not mentioned so I could go and see the Iola formation in a sequence instead of an abandoned rockpile.
 
https://inyo2.coffeecup.com/kansasfossils/kansasfossils.html
 
Eventhough the spot I hunt is a jumbled rockpile, I know its raytown due to the lithology descriptions listed here, the "Calico" appearance, and other fauna indicators that are listed on the KGS site. 
 
https://www.kgs.ku.edu/General/Geology/Johnson/05_outcr.html
 
The Muncie Creek is present via phosphate nodules being reworked into the Paola Limestone but the shale itself is gone. Ive also found the described Conulariids in the Paola Ls that are on my other album. This at least proves its one of those formations, if there is any doubt. I have not found a nodule in the Raytown so its easier to know which layer is which at the site.
 
Ive also found some fossils not listed on the website from the Raytown such as scarce fish bones and some carbon? chunks. Here are some images I took a while ago.

Carbon?

 

 
Fish teeth and Very scarce fish bones are not restricted to the Raytown as ive rarely found them in the thicker Paola strata and somewhat more commonly in the Muncie Phosphate nodules but thats off topic. 

The second tooth looks alot like Peripristis, I agree. I still am uncertain about the first tooth, I agree more prep would help. Have you checked to see if Peripristis is reported from those deposits?

I was thinking so, but I could be wrong. I based it off of this website here but I couldnt find any teeth that closely matched. I still think this is some sort of petalodont if not peripristis. 
https://www.ammonit.ru/foto/30996.htm
 
Here are some close ups I tried to take but Prepping this will need to be done to expose more. 
 

 
I also based it off my other True Peripristis tooth I found a couple weeks ago near the Missouri Iowa boarder. I assumed the specimen pictured above was the opposite side showing. 
 
other tooth:

 
 
If you have any idea of what the assumed Peripristis tooth is let me know as I want to learn more.