CaryJo Posted March 10 Posted March 10 I found these two somewhat close together on an eroding hillside just south of WI in Stephenson County, IL.
doushantuo Posted March 10 Posted March 10 (edited) the first image is certainly reminiscent of an orthocone (straight-shelled) cephalopd Edited March 10 by doushantuo 1 1
CaryJo Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 3 minutes ago, Rockwood said: I don't think the second one can really be identified. I’m not sure what you mean here. The second photo or the second fossil?
doushantuo Posted March 10 Posted March 10 a plate from Barrande 's " Systeme SIlurien" showing some " Orthoceras " morphologies 1 1
Rockwood Posted March 10 Posted March 10 13 minutes ago, CaryJo said: I’m not sure what you mean here. The second photo or the second fossil? I was referring to the second fossil, but the second photo isn't very informative either. A look from a different angle may help though.
CaryJo Posted March 10 Author Posted March 10 13 minutes ago, Rockwood said: I was referring to the second fossil, but the second photo isn't very informative either. A look from a different angle may help though. Okay I’ll try again. Obviously I’m an utter novice at this. Thank you. 1
Rockwood Posted March 10 Posted March 10 17 minutes ago, CaryJo said: Okay I’ll try again. Obviously I’m an utter novice at this. Thank you. You're doing just fine. 1 1
Mark Kmiecik Posted March 10 Posted March 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rockwood said: I was referring to the second fossil, but the second photo isn't very informative either. A look from a different angle may help though. I think that's four different specimens, therefore the second fossil/second photo confusion. My guess is first one yes, the others don't present enough information for ID. Edited March 10 by Mark Kmiecik fix typo Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!
Rockwood Posted March 10 Posted March 10 9 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said: I think that's four different specimens A fragment of cephalopod shell and three less identifiable fossils?
Mark Kmiecik Posted March 10 Posted March 10 1 minute ago, Rockwood said: A fragment of cephalopod shell and three less identifiable fossils? Yup, that's what I'm thinking. #3 looks like a fragment of a shell imprint. #2 and #4 are anybody's guess. 1 Mark. Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!
CaryJo Posted March 11 Author Posted March 11 6 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said: I think that's four different specimens, therefore the second fossil/second photo confusion. My guess is first one yes, the others don't present enough information for ID.
CaryJo Posted March 11 Author Posted March 11 No I’m sorry, it is two fossils, front and back of each. I was playing in the creek and just saw this.
doushantuo Posted March 12 Posted March 12 the first one might be a member of the Narthecoceratidae family SEE plate 8 in this one Flower, R. H. (1968). Silurian Cephalopods of James Bay Lowland, with a revision of the family Narthecoceratidae. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin, 164, https://doi.org/10.4095/101469 size : pretty near 41 mB rhflowernarthecoceracephalopordovicibuGScanadabulln_164.pdf
.thumb.JPG.10b2a43ac4676929bbc34e83812fc84c.JPG)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now