Jump to content

CaryJo

Recommended Posts

I found these two somewhat close together on an eroding hillside just south of WI in Stephenson County, IL.

IMG_1171.jpeg

IMG_1172.jpeg

IMG_1176.jpeg

IMG_1177.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first image is certainly reminiscent of an orthocone (straight-shelled) cephalopd

Edited by doushantuo
  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the second one can really be identified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a plate from Barrande 's " Systeme SIlurien"  showing some " Orthoceras " morphologies

carysystmesilurien70bcaryyjarr_0169.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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. :)

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mark Kmiecik
fix typo

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

I think that's four different specimens

A fragment of cephalopod shell and three less identifiable fossils?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • I found this Informative 1

 

 

Mark.

 

Fossil hunting is easy -- they don't run away when you shoot at them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I’m sorry, it is two fossils, front and back of each. I was playing in the creek and just saw this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...