Show Us Your Fossils Challenge Mode: Ordered By Geologic Time Period!

[FossilNerd]

21 hours ago, Jeffrey P said:

Strophomena planoconvexa

Strophomenid Brachiopods

Upper Ordovician

Liberty Formation

Richmond Group

Route 101 - Southgate Hill

St. Leon, IN.

 

collected in June 2019

I love these Stophomenids Jeff! Some of my favorite brachs to collect at St. Leon.

 

Isn’t Southgate Hill on Indiana State Road 1 (you have it listed as route 101) or are my notes wrong? 

Edited August 26, 2022 by FossilNerd

[Wrangellian]

2 hours ago, Pleuromya said:

That's a very good point, I completely missed that and just copied what the label said. I had a look and the Duck Creek Dolomite is about 1.8-2 billion years old, which would make it Palaeoproterozoic. I will also add this to the label as well. Thank you. 

Yep... specifically Orosirian in the current scheme as shown in Oxy's post above 

[Pleuromya]

39 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

Yep... specifically Orosirian in the current scheme as shown in Oxy's post above 

Thank you. 

[Ludwigia]

Coenothyris vulgaris from the Middle Triassic Ladinian at Heldrungen, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.

 

[Ludwigia]

Procerites hodsoni from the Middle Jurassic Late Bathonian retrocostatum zone at Blumberg, southern Germany.

 

 

 

[historianmichael]

Sphenodiscus lenticularis

Late Cretaceous Period (Late Maastrichtian)

Chiwapa Sandstone, Ripley Formation

Mississippi

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by historianmichael

[Kasia]

Dromiopsis rugosa (Dan, Paleocene, Fakse, Denmark)

 

 

 

[GPayton]

Galeocerdo eaglesomei tooth from the Eocene-aged Stone City formation near College Station, Texas. 

 

 

 

[siteseer]

Notorynchus sp.

Early Oligocene

River Bend Formation

New Bern, Craven County, North Carolina

symphyseal tooth of a sevengill shark

(3/8 inches, or 1cm, across)

[siteseer]

Here's an association piece.  There are two shark teeth, an upper and lower Carcharhinus leucas (bull shark) with a rhino toe bone from the Late Miocene Bone Valley Formation collected in a phosphate mine in Polk County, Florida).  The first photos shows the upper tooth.  You can see fine serrations on the cusp of the lower tooth in the second photo.  I also think the bone was on the seafloor and had eroded with some sediment filling in where the bone had worn away.  The teeth happened to settle on it apparently at different times just before they were buried together.  The teeth were a little more covered by matrix when I received it as a gift  a generous gift.  I cleaned the teeth a little more but not so far as to risk dislodging them.  The bone would have been impossible to identify if the visible condyle had not been preserved.  The upper tooth is about 7/8 inches/22mm wide.  The specimen is higher than the ruler so the tooth only appears to be at least an inch wide in the photo.

Edited August 26, 2022 by siteseer

[Pleuromya]

I'm not certain on these identifications, but for the Pliocene, a Buccinum undatum whelk on the right, from the Red Crag formation (which is Late Pliocene to Early Pleistocene, so hopefully that counts as Pliocene for this ).

 

On the left is a modern Buccinum whelk. Both are from Ramsholt in Suffolk. 

Even though the one to the left is not a fossil, I think it's interesting to see.

[Pleuromya]

This is an armour plate from Armadillo Holmesina septentrionalis, from the Pleistocene of Gilcrest County, Florida. 

[Paleorunner]

I know it's a bit late, but since we've skipped the early Cretaceous, here's a Cleoniceras besairei, from the Cretaceous Albian.
Boeny-Madagascar.

[Wrangellian]

Dickinsonia costata, Ediacaran/Vendian, White Sea, Russia

 

[Paleorunner]

It is not a good specimen, but it will serve to cover the Cambrian.
An early Cambrian arthropod: Leanchoila illecebrosa. Yunnan-China.
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Paleorunner

[Wrangellian]

3 hours ago, Paleorunner said:

It is not a good specimen, but it will serve to cover the Cambrian.
An early Cambrian arthropod: Leanchoila illecebrosa. Yunnan-China.
.

 

Do you have a bigger picture? It's very small on my monitor.

[fossil_fan12345]

Found this at beverly beach OR, by smashing open concretions. from the miocene.

[Ludwigia]

6 minutes ago, fossil_fan12345 said:

Found this at beverly beach OR, by smashing open concretions. from the miocene.

 

I'm afraid you don't appear to understand how this thread works. The next in line after the Cambrian epoch would be the Ordovician and not the Miocene. By the way, what is that thing you're showing us anyway?

[fossil_fan12345]

1 minute ago, Ludwigia said:

 

I'm afraid you don't appear to understand how this thread works. The next in line after the Cambrian epoch would be the Ordovician and not the Miocene. By the way, what is that thing you're showing us anyway?

oops im new so i got confused

[Kane]

 A large Ceraurinus from the Ordovician of Ontario. 

[Paleorunner]

5 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Do you have a bigger picture? It's very small on my monitor.

I have added the original photo to the post.
I don't know why, but sometimes when I publish the photos they look rotated, and the only way I can get them right is by reducing the file size. 

[Wrangellian]

12 hours ago, Paleorunner said:

I have added the original photo to the post.
I don't know why, but sometimes when I publish the photos they look rotated, and the only way I can get them right is by reducing the file size. 

Thanks. I can't help you there, I don't use a cellphone to do this.

[FossilNerd]

15 hours ago, Paleorunner said:

I have added the original photo to the post.
I don't know why, but sometimes when I publish the photos they look rotated, and the only way I can get them right is by reducing the file size. 

I have this issue too and fix it the same way by editing the picture. Do you have an iPhone? It’s my understanding that the forum software doesn’t work well with the iPhone. 
 

There are also a few features that I can’t see or access when using my phone (following sub-forums comes to mind).

So for quick day to day viewing I use the phone, but for uploading a lot of pictures, making more detailed posts, and doing certain tasks,  I switch to my laptop or computer.

[siteseer]

On 8/28/2022 at 6:52 AM, Ludwigia said:

 

I'm afraid you don't appear to understand how this thread works. The next in line after the Cambrian epoch would be the Ordovician and not the Miocene. By the way, what is that thing you're showing us anyway?

 

I think we're going to confuse newer contributors to this thread whenever we decide to go back and fill in for a past time unit even when several time units have gone by.  It goes against the whole point of the thread.  If only one contribution is made for the Carboniferous or the Cretaceous or a period/epoch gets skipped, we should just let it go and save our addition for the next go-around.

[Paleorunner]

1 hour ago, siteseer said:

 

I think we're going to confuse newer contributors to this thread whenever we decide to go back and fill in for a past time unit even when several time units have gone by.  It goes against the whole point of the thread.  If only one contribution is made for the Carboniferous or the Cretaceous or a period/epoch gets skipped, we should just let it go and save our addition for the next go-around.

Yes ! In these cases you are absolutely right. 
Better to let it go, so as not to confuse those who enter the thread..