Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At Florissant Colorado (dated to the Eocene) my family and I found these fossils and I would like to I D them to know what I found. I didn’t have a 12 inch/30 centimeter ruler so I used my six inch to make a ruler on a piece of paper it is accurate I promise.

 

1.BA07F956-471E-45F5-B2DD-6F5F86CD66D4.thumb.jpeg.79f096b39e69d501f4b74110f5646918.jpeg

 

2.71093083-61AE-4893-8631-27EAB7B17AC6.thumb.jpeg.7c7760452427862cfa559f179030b046.jpeg

 

3.30E0E648-A6E0-4FCB-8517-9B682939B693.thumb.jpeg.44f4b52d39995dfb4624208b9c5aa68b.jpeg28EB89D2-6540-45E2-A9C7-1F0F460E7A21.thumb.jpeg.6a9eabed5548875047f2b80f49419362.jpeg
 

4.17CD8247-2B8E-42C7-8BCC-DAA7CA5D1EC6.thumb.jpeg.d557c1c71e8339143962458a96af47bf.jpeg

 

5.46355851-5AF8-4380-A46D-2DA73FA3AA1D.thumb.jpeg.cdc91c80ea55693ab8a27dafebd13bd0.jpeg

 

6.B3434BED-8B34-4FEB-AF73-251DFBDD6605.thumb.jpeg.a98b7f152cc55f65def47494aae08193.jpeg

 

7.2264FFA2-DE46-42BD-9E47-E73BC5F11376.thumb.jpeg.c9b0be0ce5c507f2f23f739a28e10f01.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Top Trilo said:

didn’t have a 12 inch/30 centimeter ruler so I used my six inch to make a ruler on a piece of paper

 

I can't help you, but congrats for that ! :dinothumb:

 

Coco

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help you with specific id's on some of these, as I am not a botanist, nor am I an entomologist. Figure 3. shows a gastropod known as Planorbis - I don't have a species name.  Figure 4 looks like Chaemaecyparis linguafolia.  Figure 5 might be Prosopis linearifolia.  Figure 7 looks like some type of insect on the left, maybe some type of a grasshopper, I don't know.

 

Do you have a stereoscope or a low magnification microscope, less than 40x?  If you don't, you may be seeing only 1/2 or less of what is actually there in your Florissant specimens.  I, too, have Florissant rough and am slowly prepping it.  I also use razor blades to separate the almost paper-thin layers, and I do it all under a stereoscope.  You can find completely different things from layer to layer. I find loads of insects which are difficult to see, or even distinguish, with the naked eye.  10x is good enough to find most things in the Florissant.  40x is great for detail within those specimens.

 

I greatly value the American Optical stereostar and stereostar zoom scopes from the 1960's.  They are no longer manufactured, but are quite prevalent online, and were built to last.  That's what I have, and they are a fraction of the price of (and I think the design is better than) most anything you can find brand new today.

 

May I also suggest the book, The Fossils of Florissant, by Herbert W. Meyer, published by the Smithsonian Institution, 2003, also readily available online?

Edited by Paleome
Correct typos.
  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the input I haven't found any images of a grasshopper that match #7 but i will definitely look into the stereoscopes

Link to post
Share on other sites

The book I recommended above, I think, is a must.  It not only discusses the history and geology of the site, it goes into the taphonomy of the area and it's preservation processes, then goes through plants, arachnids, insects and other invertebrates, plus vertebrates found there, with stunning photographs all throughout the book. .

 

A real plus are the appendices, the first of which offers "A Complete Listing of the fossil Organisms from Florissant" (43 pages long, and all identified by genus and species), and the second of which lists "Museums with Significant Florissant Collections".

 

You can look these all up, if you want to, and frequently find photos of specimens at various museums.  I am not saying your insect is a grasshopper, or a cricket.   It just vaguely looks that way to me, and I am absolutely no expert on insects.  An expert would need a larger, more detailed image of this insect, to make an exact determination.

 

And, the general references and bibliography are also useful.  

 

By the way, your gastropod is Planorbis florissantensis.

 

If you need any recommendations on the stereoscopes, you can Personal Message me.

 

Take care,

Debra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I will probably get the book but until then I’ll try to get them an ID here. I have some closer up pictures with this small magnifying glass, hope it helps. I was wondering if figure 4 could have a bug of something and if 6 is a moth. But I’m not sure so that’s why I’m here35BD9C7B-0490-4605-AF4B-9186E22CCF8A.thumb.jpeg.43f8edd9789d0d490373b81919593854.jpeg

This is the magnifying glass I used

 

827A1347-3C98-43F8-A764-725BCECE0606.thumb.jpeg.bb7b859f8aefdd3209c6dbc9a1063a21.jpeg

 

a somewhat closer image of 7

 

22539E4E-46DF-4143-8FDA-6CDE9F031BF5.thumb.jpeg.71488ce796c791b7cde4ebbd2a21cc16.jpeg

 

a possible bug on 4

 

ED0D9BA9-0E44-458E-96B8-9555AB93435A.thumb.jpeg.e81c8a3038681d2a2619dce55766e069.jpeg

 

A possible moth on 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking back at some of my Florissant stuff and found some things that raise questions

DEA8E2C3-C666-410C-B844-002262686F86.thumb.jpeg.a3ecf1169aee0ce05cb79f9bf3467dcc.jpeg

 

this one has several things, at the top there’s a large white leaf that I will try to find an ID for same with the brown leaf at the bottom there is also this wind to the left304A2D8F-710C-4FF5-9280-1FFE4349775B.jpeg.bcc9b7f14d827ef0372ce2d090d97a7c.jpeg

 

heres a closer image

 

56E18F74-6E56-4E5D-BE0D-7F039BD70D2C.thumb.jpeg.87a2b11df14655b921092b650934e6e5.jpeg

 

on the back this looks like a wing to the right of a leaf

 

59DC83DD-35FF-4A52-AFC7-853301069C57.thumb.jpeg.2a08fa3489d9de8c14d77a9bbb546824.jpeg

 

on this rock there is a small leaf that I would like to have an ID for there is also an insect and I have no clue what it is5FBC3364-B156-4397-A86B-419F14F7DC55.jpeg.356b508035213a112d8a4d43ad01f984.jpeg

 

heres a picture zoomed in

does anyone know what these are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not clear enough to tell on some of these.  You need some insect and plant experts, and they need larger and clearer images, or need to see your specimens in person.  There are probably hundreds of things these could be, in terms of an exact ID.  Differentiating between species alone can be very complex, if not impossible at times, due to problems of preservation.  And just because something resembles a photo, doesn't actually mean that's exactly what it is.  You can get kind of close by id'ing things that way, but lots of things resemble other things.  It's actually in the deeper recognition of specific structures which requires closer examination.

 

I was able to identify your gastropod rather easily, because there is only one from that site which coils in one plane, and has that few whorls.  But maybe it's just a juvenile, and would have created many more whorls, and a somewhat different shape,  if it had reached maturity, making it something else. The Chaemaecyperis is fairly common there and has a fairly distinctive look.  The Prosopis resembles Sequoia affinis from that site, but I would expect the size and spacing of the needles to be smaller and denser for Sequoia, plus I am only seeing part of the arrangement on the stem, not the whole thing.  These are only educated guesses on my part.  It takes an expert eye and body of knowledge to be exact. That's why I can only say that something may or might  be A or B, or resembles A or B.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Prosopis linearifolia' has a new name combination: Arcoa linearifolia

 

Herendeen, P.S., Herrera, F. 2019

Eocene Fossil Legume Leaves Referable to the Extant Genus Arcoa (Caesalpinioideae, Leguminosae). International Journal of Plant Sciences, 180(3):220-231  PDF LINK

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am not surprised.  Scientific names change quite frequently, as more is learned from scientific research.  Changing the name implies a change in the relationship that organism has with other closely-related life forms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paleome said:

Yes, I am not surprised.  Scientific names change quite frequently, as more is learned from scientific research.  Changing the name implies a change in the relationship that organism has with other closely-related life forms.

 

 

Herb Meyer said it would probably be referable to another genus.  It only took 66 years for the revision ... geologically speaking--barely a blink of the eye! eyepopping.gif

 

image.thumb.png.9970300d3eeb5cc2dd6ba09598fac46e.png

 

Meyer, H.W. 2003

The Fossils of Florissant.

Smithsonian Books, 258 pp.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help I will put the unanswered ones in another post to clean it up and hopefully some plant/insect experts will chime in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...