Unreal woodbine expedition today

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

My best woodbine hunt ever (since I started this year, lol), 11 woodbines and one of them is over 7 inches across! The overall condition is better than my 2 prior excursions as well. I’m super thrilled about these. I also found some great pet wood pieces with the appearance of having been underwater for awhile “back in the day.” Any insight into the smaller “critters” is appreciated. I am not positive if one piece is sandstone or pet wood, but I do have 3-4 pet wood pieces (some not shown). The small ammonite in front is a different species than the conlinoceras tarrantense. Woodbine/eagleford border, Tarrant county Texas. My toes went numb walking the creek. I know another hunter who found 7 woodbines at this spot 2 weeks ago (after our biggest rain since Spring) but I guess my eyes were more desperate to spot what he missed

Edited November 26, 2023 by Shaun-DFW Fossils

[SPrice]

Some beastie sized ammonites for sure! What a great haul!                      

[jpc]

Looks like a fun day out.  Except for the cold feet part. Are the ammonites what you are calling Woodbines?  

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

Thanks! Yes, the woodbine formation is where these ammonites are found, they’re called woodbine ammonites as far as common name

[Lone Hunter]

Dang your just cleaning up everywhere you go   I've never heard of those ammonites being referred to as Woodbines since their in Eagle Ford also, guessing it's because 'tarrant' is in the name  Cretateous brachiopods are pretty scarce in Texas and aren't found in Woodbine as far as I know. Looks like you got oysters and mish mash of clams.

[Ludwigia]

Great stuff! Are most of the ammonites you are showing us Conlinoceras or are there some Calycoceras as well?

[Lone Hunter]

I think I'm seeing some Calycoceras but hard to tell without seeing keels.

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

4 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

I think I'm seeing some Calycoceras but hard to tell without seeing keels.

 

4 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

Great stuff! Are most of the ammonites you are showing us Conlinoceras or are there some Calycoceras as well?

Thank you! I can only repeat what I hear, but I was told conlinoceras is simply a name change for calycoceras? If true, that means you’re right! I also agree that they’re more of an Eagle ford border find so I was curious why I’ve heard them being referred to as woodbine..the guy who has taught me what little I know has a lot of scientific publications so I’ve been assuming an informed level of knowledge lol

[Ludwigia]

2 minutes ago, Shaun-DFW Fossils said:

 

Thank you! I can only repeat what I hear, but I was told conlinoceras is simply a name change for calycoceras? If true, that means you’re right! I also agree that they’re more of an Eagle ford border find so I was curious why I’ve heard them being referred to as woodbine..the guy who has taught me what little I know has a lot of scientific publications so I’ve been assuming an informed level of knowledge lol

I'm no expert on this fauna, since I've never been there, but I did do a bit of research and discovered that Conlinoceras used to be a subgenus of Calycoceras until it was split out and turned into a genus of its own. I've studied some photos and noticed that most Conlinoceras ammonites appear to have a couple of rows of pronounced tubercules or nodes on their keel, whereas the Calycoceras ones don't. I think that's why Lone Hunter might be suggesting that you show us some side views.

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

8 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

I'm no expert on this fauna, since I've never been there, but I did do a bit of research and discovered that Conlinoceras used to be a subgenus of Calycoceras until it was split out and turned into a genus of its own. I've studied some photos and noticed that most Conlinoceras ammonites appear to have a couple of rows of pronounced tubercules or nodes on their keel, whereas the Calycoceras ones don't. I think that's why Lone Hunter might be suggesting that you show us some side views.

Thank you, I would do well to also confirm what I’m told next time to avoid posting anything incorrect. Thanks for looking into it and raising a good question! I’ll see what I can do about getting a few more detailed pics in a little while. I’ll post them here when I have them! Interesting info.

[trilobites_are_awesome]

Great finds i love them!

[hadrosauridae]

Thats a great day of hunting! congrats!

[SPrice]

Are these pics of your finds taken "as found" or had you cleaned or started prepping them before the photos were taken? Also, do you display them as found or prep and preserve them with a consolidant like Paraloid or beeswax or whatever is your choice?

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

1 hour ago, hadrosauridae said:

Thats a great day of hunting! congrats!

Thank you! I was pretty excited. All in all, I spent about 2.5 hours looking to find those, so not bad time/value ratio 😂

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

28 minutes ago, SPrice said:

Are these pics of your finds taken "as found" or had you cleaned or started prepping them before the photos were taken? Also, do you display them as found or prep and preserve them with a consolidant like Paraloid or beeswax or whatever is your choice?

Great questions, I washed each of them with soap and water but nothing more. I will need to free 3 of the larger ones from some unseen matrix on the other side very carefully but I’ll probably leave the smaller one in that larger slab as is. I am really a newbie when it comes to prepping so I’ve been relying upon a friend for his air abrasive and other tools. I may slice the ones in worst shape because this species and area tend to show really nice calcite crystals inside! I need to learn about the others you mentioned. 

[Shaun-DFW Fossils]

12 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

I'm no expert on this fauna, since I've never been there, but I did do a bit of research and discovered that Conlinoceras used to be a subgenus of Calycoceras until it was split out and turned into a genus of its own. I've studied some photos and noticed that most Conlinoceras ammonites appear to have a couple of rows of pronounced tubercules or nodes on their keel, whereas the Calycoceras ones don't. I think that's why Lone Hunter might be suggesting that you show us some side views.

 

17 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

I think I'm seeing some Calycoceras but hard to tell without seeing keels.

My friend says the latest papers reflect a view that both calycoceras and conlinoceras are scientifically the same, but even he notes that there is a difference in appearance for what had been classified as two different genuses. He’s updating his website to reflect conlinoceras on everything. I saw this happen similarly with herpetology too, where they decided to eliminate subspecies and lumped very different looking snakes into the same species (desert kingsnake and speckled kingsnake, Texas ratsnake vs black ratsnake, etc). I’m sure the reasons are different but it certainly creates confusion on my end! Lol

[Ludwigia]

5 hours ago, Shaun-DFW Fossils said:

My friend says the latest papers reflect a view that both calycoceras and conlinoceras are scientifically the same, but even he notes that there is a difference in appearance for what had been classified as two different genuses. He’s updating his website to reflect conlinoceras on everything. I saw this happen similarly with herpetology too, where they decided to eliminate subspecies and lumped very different looking snakes into the same species (desert kingsnake and speckled kingsnake, Texas ratsnake vs black ratsnake, etc). I’m sure the reasons are different but it certainly creates confusion on my end! Lol

It's a never ending story, isn't it. Just when an amateur figures he's finally got an id down right, along comes an expert and turns everything upside down. In a lot of papers defining individuals one first reads a long list of names of what the creature used to be called in the past before they give it yet another name.

[Yoda]

@Shaun-DFW Fossils

 

Wow, fantastic finds   

[Sjfriend]

On 11/26/2023 at 5:39 PM, Shaun-DFW Fossils said:

My friend says the latest papers reflect a view that both calycoceras and conlinoceras are scientifically the same, but even he notes that there is a difference in appearance for what had been classified as two different genuses. He’s updating his website to reflect conlinoceras on everything. I saw this happen similarly with herpetology too, where they decided to eliminate subspecies and lumped very different looking snakes into the same species (desert kingsnake and speckled kingsnake, Texas ratsnake vs black ratsnake, etc). I’m sure the reasons are different but it certainly creates confusion on my end! Lol

I always wonder when the split things due to a slight morphology difference are we talking different species/subspecies or sexual dimorphism? 

 

And I totally get the herpetology thing! Kingsnakes can't cut a break, they keep getting lumped and split over and over!

[sixgill pete]

Wow! Uhhhh did I say Wow!

 

Good gosh, what a great day. Amazing ammonite finds.