Search the Community

I should preface this post by saying that the Paleozoic, marine ecosystems, and invertebrates are not generally my primary expertise, so I apologize if I am wildly off base or asking stupid questions. Sadly, I did not find these specimens myself, and so I do not have any particularly useful information on age or location. They were left in a desk drawer along with a collection of other invertebrate fossils, most (if not all) of which are Paleozoic in age. I have several different specimens of orthocone nautiloids, and I would love to know if anyone can refine that identification further. To make the situation more difficult, the siphuncle is only preserved in one of the specimens so far as I can tell (first set of photos below). For this specimen, the diameter of the nautiloid is ~3.5 cm (depending on exactly where it is measured), the inner diameter visible on top and the diameter of the siphuncle on the bottom are 4 mm, and the outer diameter is 8 mm. Here are the pictures. Thank you in advance for your time and input. Specimen #1: Specimen #2:

While at the ABQ Gem and Mineral show on Sunday, I spotted this cool little Nautiloid... ...I could not help myself. The information: Does anyone recognize the matrix/fossils and perhaps some guidance on literature? Thanks for your help.

Hi guys/gals, found this huge Nautilus this Saturday, still unprepped and I'm still in a bit of shock, once prepped I think it will be unreal... thanks, Alan.

Here's a new fossil shape I just learned that maybe others will find interesting or useful. This muffin is a broken segment of the "annulosiphonate deposits' from a Carboniferous nautiloid. I can certainly say this would've completely stumped me had I found one of these before learning this!

I'm posting this per the suggestion of @Fossildude19 initially I pegged this as a trilobite, until I saw @electricshaman's nautiloid get identified earlier today. Now I'm not sure. Thoughts?

My first guess is straight nautiloid. What do you all think?

Okay, help me out here. Somebody posted the following images on the Fossil Forum Facebook group. Not the best pictures in the world, however, the ribbing, keel and overall appearance make it clear that this is an ammonite. However, somebody on the group, claiming to be a highly qualified expert, says that this is in fact a nautiloid, pointing to 'the sutures' as proof. I don't see any sutures, but he says that the ribs are 'external expressions of septa'. Now. I have been wrong before. But, unless I'm slowly succumbing to madness, this is an ammonite. As clear as day. This highly learned man tells me that I am uneducated and don't know what I'm talking about. He is presumably just trolling, but I'm never one to back down from an argument under any circumstances, so I would welcome a second opinion. At the very least, I can pop off down the doctors for a referral to a suitable brain hospital, if it turns out that I've started to confuse different types of cephalopod.

Hello, This appears to be an internal mold/cast of an orthoconic nautiloid, and therefore I am not sure if there is sufficient detail to get an ID. This is from the Niagaran Series, Burnt Bluff Group, Hendricks Dolimite (Fiborn Member) Formation (middle Silurian) of Schoolcraft County, Michigan (Upper Peninsula). Looking for more info on possible identity from those familiar with the Silurian orthocones from this area. @FossilDAWG? Cross section

Hi, I found this fossil a few years ago on the shoreline of lake ontario right in the city of Kingston Ontario. I believe the exposures here are upper Ordovician age limestone (Gull River formation) however there may have been fill brought in from elsewhere to stabilize the shoreline so this fossil may not be exactly local. It looks to have a siphuncle (acentral) and sutures (relatively close together) so I thought it appeared to be some type of orthocone nautiloid of some type. Based on Bill Hessin's field guide "South Central Ontario Fossils" I thought i might be Gonioceras anceps or Actinoceras but I really don't know. The pics here are not great, but hopefully someone has some ideas. Thanks

Hi fossils friends, Here are some of my last preparations : Lower Triassic Flemingites lidacensis (Welter 1922) - 19 cm

Hi fossils friends, here is a little taphonomic accumulation plate with many Olenekian (lower Triassic) Ammonoids. It comes from the Vikinghøgda Formation - Sassendalen group (Sassendalen valley - Spitsbergen island - Svalbard archipelago - Norway) Most of the Ammonoids are Svalbardiceras spitzbergensis (Freblod, 1930). Associated on the plate is an unidentified orthoconic Nautiloid (never seen this in the associated litterature), a bivalve and a partial Ammonoid from the Hedenstroemiidae family (at the top-left). Size of the plate is 11,5 X 9,5 cm. I prepared it with my Dremel engraver in about 8 hours.

Found yesterday in dirt, directly alongside a creekbed in NNW San Antonio. I took a picture of it before I pulled it out then the subsequent photos are post cleaning. I have found many like this but this was different in that the segments were separate but still in the same place. I thought it was a nautiloid but those other pieces with it seemed odd. It's about 5 inches long and 3 1/2 inches tall. Thanks to your help in advance!

Hello, folks! I'm one of those guys that finds fossils fascinating, and loves the natural history museums, but has never really tried to find fossils. I bought a one-inch fish fossil in a museum gift shop many years ago, for a few bucks, and for along time, that comprised my fossil collection. One day, my collection grew 100% when I realized one of the random rocks bordering a garden at the house I was renting had a pretty large fossil apparent in it. I took that stone, and have had it on my mantle for years. I always wondered what it was, and finally I stumbled on this site and decided to see if the good folks here can help me settle once and for all what it is. I have a good guess, but we'll get to that. I read some ID threads and the posting guidelines, and I realize that I've already made one mistake, in not including a scale inthe pictures. Oh well, hopefully my descriptions of size will suffice. Also, my cheap little camera struggles with focus and lighting on macro pics, and I'm no photographer. But it's a pretty large fossil so hopefully you can see what it is. I'd be super stoked to have my suspicions confirmed, or destroyed, either way, as long as I find out what it is and can match it to a picture of something pretty similar. Speaking of that, I have looked at fossil ID charts and at pics, and while I can't find anything that matches it exactly, I feel like I'm close. In any case, here are the pics and then I'll say what I think it is so you can all laugh at the guesses of a Rock Noob. As mentioned before, it was found in a backyard in Oklahoma City, but I suspect it was not native, and was carried there somehow. It does resemble rocks I've seen near just about every beach I've ever been to, especially on the Gulf of Mexico. I'm thinking it's just some sort of sedimentary limestone. The fossil itself is about one inch across the round cross section you can see at the left end. It appears to be the broken end of a long, cone shaped "shell" of some sort. The shell continues into the rock for about 4 inches, and I can't see that it comes out the other side, but I get the impression it was longer at some point. My observation of the segments that make up the object, and the suggestion of a spiral-chambered structure I can sort of see inside the broken end, lead me to believe it was some sort of straight-cone-shelled ammonoid creature. My feeble web research indicates that there were such creatures, many types, in fact. I've found many drawings and pics that are close, but not dead-on enough for me to close the case. My official guess is that my fossil came from something approximately like this: But, hey, I'm no expert on ammonoid or nautiloid taxonomy, so I leave it to you, good experts! The Photographs: (poor as they are) Main view, you can see into this broken end and in person, sort of see how it looks as if it had spiral chambers inside. The pronounced longitudinal ridges or scores are very evident. There is a slight curve to the fossil but it is broken in some places and I think it was originally fairly straight. It has a regular gentle taper towards the end that disappears into the rock. What I believe were originally open spaces in the "shell" have filled with some sort of crystal that grew there. Another view of this end. The whole rock is about 8 inches in length, perhaps 5 inches fron to back, a few inches thick. The fossil is clearly separated from the rock, it looks like I could tap the rock with a hammer and the fossil would just fall out. I don't plan to try that, however. You can see there is a hole or crack about one inch from the leftmost extremity. You can see inside and see the crystalization that has taken place in there. More importantly, toward the upper left of that crack, you can see that the outer surface of the object has broken away. This reveals that each of those "cells" apparent on the outside are hollow inside- the object is in fact a stack or a spiral arrangement of many, many, little chambers. You can see more open cells on the center-right area as well, and these have filled in. This strongly suggests an ammonoid or nautiloid mollusc to me. It appears that the transverse chevrons, along with the longitudinal scores are actually the divisions between tighly packed shell chambers or sections. The chevrons divisions appear in annular rings or a spiral around the object, at regular intervals all along it's length, on every part I can see. These scores and chevrons look very much like the sutures evident in other shells, but I have yet to find a picture that matches closely. Moving to the right, this chip came off without effort, basically just fell off (long ago.) you can see the imprint of the object, along with a very clear imprint of some scallop-like bivavle mollusc. I'm already convinced it's a sea creature, but this bivalve further indicates where this came from. My object disappears into the rock behind that bivalve imprint. I feel I could dig more of it out, but I would rather leave the rock as-is. Closer shot of that area. The shell itself is gone but it left a perfect, detailed imprint of the little scallop. Numerous other small shells are evident, as with all this type of rock. From reading the ID advice I realize that a "hand shot" isn't the best indicator of size, but I promise, to the best of my knowledge, that my hand size is as average as it comes. There are other things hiding in here, it hard to see but this area seems to have something going on underneath it. Hopefully htis is enough for someone to recognize my mystery "shell." I won't be surprised if some one can say that "this is a very common ________ from ________ where they dig them out by the ton in ________limestone quarry." But you never know, this might end up being the find of the century! (I won't hold my breath. . .) Thanks for looking! I also have two rock samples, one of which may be petrified wood. Is there a similar "Rock ID thread" I can post them in? -Brian

While moving into my new workshop I came across some cool pieces from my collection that I'm not sure I had ever photographed. My camera flash is broken, so I just took these using a cell phone. There are a few oddities that I'm not sure of their IDs, and a few that are just cool pieces. Appears to be a partial Actinopteria decussata. Not a common find at the site. Looks like a nautiloid, perhaps a Orthoceras or Spyroceras, but has a really weird surface texture to it. Nice long section of crinoid stem. This was very tough to stabilize, it was practically jumping out of the matrix piece by piece. A big honkin' Eldredgeops rana that's partially enrolled. Still prepping him out. Unfortunately he's missing a chunk of the left librigina. You can also see the spines of a well-preserved Spinatrypa spinosa in the bottom of the frame. I don't know what this is. It's concave, and I think it's the interior of a Spyroceras, but I can't be sure it's such an odd segment to try and classify from.

Hello! I'm back after a long posting absence and I would like to share my recent finds with you (December was a very "fossiliferous" month for me). My new fantastic collecting spot is located near Vila Nova de Ourém. However I can't tell you precisely the age of the layers (even after a very exaustive research).That's why I would like to ask for specific paleobiological/stratigraphic documentation or information about this region. I collected fossils from two layers and I noticed the fauna was quite different, so I suppose they are not the same age. As I don't know their age, I will call them "Layer1" and "Layer2" (wich was stratigraphically above "Layer1"). Layer1 (Jurassic or Cretaceous) In this layer I found lots of oysters, the most abundant fossil. I also found: -Crocodylomorph tooth (???)

This specimen was a surprise to me. At first glance, because of the delicate fibrous appearance and the wood color, I thought it was a modern piece of wood embedded in the middle of a boulder. Closer examination, however, revealed what you see in the pictures. This specimen is from the Winterset Limestone Member in the Kansas City Group, Pennsylvanian subsystem. It is about 1 cm long with a short branch off to the side. The specimen is split in half laterally and the pictures show the two halves that fit together. There were various brachiopods and half of a nice four-inch involutely coiled nautiloid (at least I think that is what it is) in the same boulder. The fossil is siliceous and has well-preserved, tiny fibers which are the color of wood. Although, it may be that the color is actually the same dusty red-brown or dusty purple as some other fossils in this member (mostly brachiopods). From the scant resources I have on hand for plant identification, I have guessed that it might be a Calamites. Any help with identification will be appreciated. Russ Russ

I've googled and googled but can't find a definitive family tree for ammoniods/cephalopods &c. I'm looking for relationships between ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, turrilites etc. Does that make sense? Thanks J