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

[Gramps]

13 hours ago, Misha said:

Do we consider the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian separate for this?

 

Here's my Upper Pennsylvanian Acanthodes bridgei from Kansas

That is an amazing fossil! Can you tell us what each closeup shows? Thanls.

[Ludwigia]

3 hours ago, JamieLynn said:

When Ludwigia started doing the points system

That was Franz. Not me.

[Missourian]

7 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

11 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

I almost think we could allow another stage within the same period(system) as long as it comes after the previous one posted. For instance, if someone posts a Santonian item, you could (optionally) follow with a Campanian or Maastrichtian item, or go on to the Paleocene as usual. This topic goes along quick enough, but everyone seems to miss the period they want to post and they have to wait for the whole cycle to come around again, and still might miss it then too. This would allow more items from the more popular periods to be shown.... that is unless the original intent was to allow each period to be represented equally. In that case, never mind! I think it's a good exercise for people to learn the geologic time scale.

 

I agree. The same could apply in my opinion, for instance, to my Period of particular interest, the Jurassic, where we have not only 3 Epochs, but also all together 11 Stages within these....but this could also apply to all of the other Periods as well, couldn't it? Specialists in those areas have probably got finds from practically all Stages which could be shown. I think, as you are suggesting, that we could add things from younger Epochs or Stages within a particular System ad hoc, rather than as a rule, if it fits. I'm pretty sure that the fellow who started this off would have nothing against this idea, since he's hardly contributed anything much more than the original basic idea since he got this going and the impulse to keep it going has been taken over by others. What do you others think about this suggestion?

 

I like this idea.

 

Timing the Pennsylvanian is particularly tricky . I sometimes have to 'hiatus' the Mississippian to get it in. Considering that most Pennsylvanian fossils posted are of Moscovian-Desmoinesian-Westphalian-age (e.g. Mazon Creek), and most fossils in my collection are Kasimovian-Missourian-Stephanian, I can slip mine in while everyone else waits for the Permian.

 

For reference, the Pennsylvanian can be roughly broken down as:

 

Bashkirian-Morrowan-Namurian

Bashkirian-Atokan-Westphalian

Moscovian-Atokan-Westphalian

Moscovian-Desmoinesian-Westphalian

Kasimovian-Missourian-Stephanian

Gzhelian-Virgilian-Stephanian

 

(I gather that Bashkirian-Morrowan-Atokan fossils will be much less commonly posted here)

 

If desired, biostratigraphic studies in an area should help to identify the exact boundaries.

 

[historianmichael]

Estheria ovata

Late Triassic Period

Lockatong Formation

New Jersey

[Misha]

4 hours ago, Gramps said:

That is an amazing fossil! Can you tell us what each closeup shows? Thanls.

The first of the close-ups is showing the tail with the tiny scales preserved, with this specimen you can notice that it has only partially developed squamation, which starts at the tail and moves to the head as the animal matures, showing this is a juvenile individual.

The second close-up is of the paired spines that would have been part of the pectoral fins of the fish.

The last picture shows some very thin and delicate structures which were preserved including the jaw and gill rakers

[JamieLynn]

 Ammonite Distichoceras bicostatum

UK Middle Jurassic.  Oxford Clay formation

Size 6mm

 

 

 

[Ludwigia]

Well, I guess I'm allowed to show something from the Late Jurassic now, right? More precisely, it's from the Early Kimmeridgian divisum zone in the Upper Danube Valley. A Crussoliceras divisum ammonite, the species which gives it's name to the zone, with a ø of 17cm. The special thing about it, is that it has a passenger on each side of it, one of which is removeable. The first being a Liostrea roemeri oyster, and the second being a Laevaptychus obliquus, which is part of the jaw. Needless to say, I was very pleased to have made this find.

 

 

 

 

[historianmichael]

A few weeks ago I shared a Dunnicrinus mississippiensis calyx from the Late Cretaceous (Late Maastrichtian) Prairie Bluff Chalk of Mississippi. The calyx is on an encrinite slab covered with other articulated crinoid elements as well as hundreds of loose crinoid ossicles. The slab however also has five undescribed ophiuroids. Most of these specimens are just the central plates with a couple having partial arms attached or nearby. From my understanding the association of crinoids and brittle stars is a common phenomenon that still exists today.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by historianmichael

[siteseer]

Here is a rare Hexanchus (sixgill shark) tooth from the Early Paleocene.  Hexanchus appeared during the Jurassic and may be the earliest modern shark genus to appear.  It survived the end-Cretaceous mass extinction perhaps because it frequented deeper water environments.

 

I'm not sure what species this belongs to.  This one is clearly from a smaller species (perhaps just  a few feet long/1 meter) than those that live today.  The modern bluntnose sixgill shark can grow to 20 feet long (about 6 meters) which is as long or longer than the largest recorded great white sharks.

 

Hexanchus sp.

Early Paleocene

Lower Hornerstown Formation

site in Monmouth County, New Jersey

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by siteseer
additional note

[Paleorunner]

Globularia patula 2.4 centimeters.
  Eocene "Lutecian" .... Daméry - Paris - France.

 

[Ludwigia]

A 4.5cm. long Turicula regularis gastropod with original shell remnants worked out of a concretion from the Oligocene Vejle Fjord Formation Chatt B. Found in 2011 on the beach at Lyby Strand, Limfjord, Denmark.

 

[Wrangellian]

14 hours ago, JamieLynn said:

agreed, I like that idea, but I can see how someone like me, who knows a lot about Cretaceous and which is younger or older but I don't know about the stages  of the Jurassic, I wouldn't know if this random Jurassic fossil I have fits in what chronological order.  So if I don't know what formation it is, I just hope it fits! And yes, it should be just one post per person. That is kind of a "rule" anyways. When Ludwigia started doing the points system it was to discourage multiple posts by the same person. 

 

10 hours ago, Missourian said:

I like this idea.

Timing the Pennsylvanian is particularly tricky . I sometimes have to 'hiatus' the Mississippian to get it in. Considering that most Pennsylvanian fossils posted are of Moscovian-Desmoinesian-Westphalian-age (e.g. Mazon Creek), and most fossils in my collection are Kasimovian-Missourian-Stephanian, I can slip mine in while everyone else waits for the Permian.

...

I guess things could get pretty messy if we're not sure of the exact age of a fossil and if we start referring to the various regional systems instead of the international one... I was only thinking of the international scale but I suppose many of us might only know the age of our fossils by a regional scale and not sure which international stage it corresponds to, and the two scales overlap in various ways. Let's just say it's fair game if you can be reasonably confident that it comes from the next stage up (on whichever scale). This is where we are encouraged to refer to the charts as Missourian has posted above! If in doubt, wait until the next round to show it.

If anyone doesn't like the idea of going by stages (optionally), speak up.

[Wrangellian]

9 hours ago, historianmichael said:

Estheria ovata

Late Triassic Period

Lockatong Formation

New Jersey

Interesting... Is this a bivalve or a phyllocarid-type thing?

[Misha]

28 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

Interesting... Is this a bivalve or a phyllocarid-type thing?

Clam shrimp

[JamieLynn]

Miocene of Nebraska

Pseudhipparion gratum 

Size 3/4 inch

[Ludwigia]

I bought this strange looking gastropod online a couple of years ago because it was new to me and I'd never seen anything quite like it before. Thylacodes arenarius ø 4.5cm. It was apparently picked up on the Strada via di Monte Olivio in Castelfiorentino in the province of Toscana, Italy. Pliocene.

 

 

[Missourian]

Mammoth tooth fragment

Mammuthus sp.

Kansas River alluvium

Wyandotte County, Kansas, USA

 

[hemipristis]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:09 AM, siteseer said:

Here is a rare Hexanchus (sixgill shark) tooth from the Early Paleocene.  Hexanchus appeared during the Jurassic and maybe the earliest modern shark genus to appear.  It survived the end-Cretaceous mass extinction perhaps because it frequented deeper water environments.

 

I'm not sure what species this belongs to. 

 

Hexanchus sp.

Early Paleocene

Lower Hornerstown Formation

site in Monmouth County, New Jersey

 

 

Very nice!  I’ve got a few teeth that I found from the Hornerstown, but nothing so exotic

[rocket]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:37 PM, historianmichael said:

A few weeks ago I shared a Dunnicrinus mississippiensis calyx from the Late Cretaceous (Late Maastrichtian) Prairie Bluff Chalk of Mississippi. The calyx is on an encrinite slab covered with other articulated crinoid elements as well as hundreds of loose crinoid ossicles. The slab however also has five undescribed ophiuroids. Most of these specimens are just the central plates with a couple having partial arms attached or nearby. From my understanding the association of crinoids and brittle stars is a common phenomenon that still exists today.

 

 

Has there a paper been published about the crinoids and other echinoderms? Very nice and unique piece! I ask because we are working on a faunal description with similar fossils from upper cretaceous (Santonian) of NW-Germany. Love to get more input! thanks

[siteseer]

On 12/6/2022 at 8:22 PM, Wrangellian said:

 

I guess things could get pretty messy if we're not sure of the exact age of a fossil and if we start referring to the various regional systems instead of the international one... I was only thinking of the international scale but I suppose many of us might only know the age of our fossils by a regional scale and not sure which international stage it corresponds to, and the two scales overlap in various ways. Let's just say it's fair game if you can be reasonably confident that it comes from the next stage up (on whichever scale). This is where we are encouraged to refer to the charts as Missourian has posted above! If in doubt, wait until the next round to show it.

If anyone doesn't like the idea of going by stages (optionally), speak up.

 

I think we should try to keep things simple: period by period for the Paleozoic and Cretaceous; epoch by epoch for the Cenozoic.  We've already had members post fossils out-of-order whether because they didn't read the first page or because they felt the need to "fill in" a skipped time unit after the fact.  That kind of thing confuses the newbies and those that collect fossils more casually.  I like the idea of teaching stages (and ages, the North American Mammal Ages, for example) but that might be better presented in a separate thread.  Members with a collection at that level of representation could pick a time unit, show fossils in succession, and provide notes on each of those.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that this discussion of multiple stage posts is going to be largely/completely forgotten or go unread two pages from now.  All many members are going to see later is a bunch of Cretaceous fossils in a row so they might just post there own group of on-hand Cretaceous photos as well with no idea that they should be chronological within the period as well.  I think you could still do it and keep the blissfully unaware to a minimum if you explain in each post with multiple chronological fossils what you are doing and that it has been discussed before.

[historianmichael]

14 hours ago, rocket said:

Has there a paper been published about the crinoids and other echinoderms? Very nice and unique piece! I ask because we are working on a faunal description with similar fossils from upper cretaceous (Santonian) of NW-Germany. Love to get more input! thanks

Dunnicrinus mississippiensis is described in "Unique Stalked Crinoids from Upper Cretaceous of Mississippi" (Moore, 1967). A different species, Dunnicrinus aequalis, also pops up in The Netherlands and Belgium, as described in "The Late Maastrichtian bourgueticrinid crinoid Dunnicrinus aequalis (d'Orbigny, 1841) from The Netherlands and Belgium" (Jagt, 1998). As I said, the ophiuroid is to my knowledge undescribed. The association of crinoids and ophiuroids was something I was told about. I am sure it is described somewhere but I do not have any references. I hope this helps!

[Wrangellian]

5 hours ago, siteseer said:

I think we should try to keep things simple: period by period for the Paleozoic and Cretaceous; epoch by epoch for the Cenozoic.  We've already had members post fossils out-of-order whether because they didn't read the first page or because they felt the need to "fill in" a skipped time unit after the fact.  That kind of thing confuses the newbies and those that collect fossils more casually.  I like the idea of teaching stages (and ages, the North American Mammal Ages, for example) but that might be better presented in a separate thread.  Members with a collection at that level of representation could pick a time unit, show fossils in succession, and provide notes on each of those.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that this discussion of multiple stage posts is going to be largely/completely forgotten or go unread two pages from now.  All many members are going to see later is a bunch of Cretaceous fossils in a row so they might just post there own group of on-hand Cretaceous photos as well with no idea that they should be chronological within the period as well.  I think you could still do it and keep the blissfully unaware to a minimum if you explain in each post with multiple chronological fossils what you are doing and that it has been discussed before.

I thought it would be a good way to encourage those with fossils to show to learn the (st)ages, but I guess some are still working on the periods. The other purpose as I said was it to allow fossils to be posted that would otherwise have to wait for a posting from a less-common period, and may never get shown, but I guess there are other places on TFF to show those... Allowing stages inserted would give a more accurate look at the fossil record as it is available to us - yes, there would be more Cretaceous, but it seems silly to me to require only one fossil from the Cretaceous and then not just one each from the Paleogene/Neogene/Quaternary, but one from each epoch of the Cenozoic, when the Cretaceous is longer than the entire Cenozoic and Cret. fossils are not obviously less common than Cenozoic ones. If it is felt sufficient to allow a Lower and an Upper Cretaceous fossil, as I proposed a while back, then I'm ok with that.

I did start a thread a while back to show my collection by stages, but it fell by the wayside because I have failed (so far) to collect one from every stage, and being only my collection, it wasn't participatory, so it didn't garner a lot of interest from people who might have been inspired to try the same thing or to make trades with me. So I don't know whether I should take that as an indication of low interest in the idea, or try to start that up again.

 

[Wrangellian]

OK, Precambrian again.

Since we're allowing BIFs, here is a chunk from around Cleator, Yavapai County, Arizona, Paleoproterozoic, Black Hills Fm (according to dealer).

This I gather would have been part of the Yavapai-Mazatzal Craton, or a continental rift basin to the west of it.

 

[siteseer]

On 12/8/2022 at 5:15 PM, Wrangellian said:

I thought it would be a good way to encourage those with fossils to show to learn the (st)ages, but I guess some are still working on the periods. The other purpose as I said was it to allow fossils to be posted that would otherwise have to wait for a posting from a less-common period, and may never get shown, but I guess there are other places on TFF to show those... Allowing stages inserted would give a more accurate look at the fossil record as it is available to us - yes, there would be more Cretaceous, but it seems silly to me to require only one fossil from the Cretaceous and then not just one each from the Paleogene/Neogene/Quaternary, but one from each epoch of the Cenozoic, when the Cretaceous is longer than the entire Cenozoic and Cret. fossils are not obviously less common than Cenozoic ones. If it is felt sufficient to allow a Lower and an Upper Cretaceous fossil, as I proposed a while back, then I'm ok with that.

I did start a thread a while back to show my collection by stages, but it fell by the wayside because I have failed (so far) to collect one from every stage, and being only my collection, it wasn't participatory, so it didn't garner a lot of interest from people who might have been inspired to try the same thing or to make trades with me. So I don't know whether I should take that as an indication of low interest in the idea, or try to start that up again.

 

 

If you have a lot of Cretaceous fossils stage-by-stage, I think you should revisit your thread and make it known that you welcome the participation of others.  Ammonite collectors might be interested in something like that.  You don't see a lot of pre-Albian Cretaceous shark teeth on the market or available through trades (I might have just 2 or 3 Aptian-age teeth) so you wouldn't get much participation from shark/vertebrate collectors until the Albian.  However, like you said, it might not be as popular as this thread.  I think the key to a long thread like this one is its simplicity.  There's a Cambrian fossil and here's an Ordovician one.  Oh look, a Miocene fossil, I can post my Pliocene one.  It's fun.  However, when someone drops a Cenomanian fossil on the thread and then it's time for a Turonian one, then you have to do some homework and maybe run into a specimen that comes from a formation that ranges from Cenomanian to Turonian.  That's going to seem like a hassle to some but others would like the challenge so I think you should try it and see how it goes.

 

It's true the Cretaceous is longer than the Cenozoic but a lot of Cenozoic is exposed around the world because much of the older rocks have been eroded away or subducted.  In California there are Cretaceous sites but it's been a lot easier to find Miocene-Pleistocene fossils.  In fact most of my collection is Miocene partly because of that.

Edited December 10, 2022 by siteseer

[Ludwigia]

As I've seen that a number of participants have already agreed with us, I'm going to continue on here in the fashion which Wrangellian and I have been suggesting when the opportunity presents itself, as I wrote, ad hoc, rather than as a rule, if it fits.