pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) "Puente Formation and its age is Luisian, 50 MILLION YEARS OLD, These PIPE FISH belongs to the Miocene and were found in the Santa Ynez fault that runs through the Santa Ynez river valley, This PIPEFISH was found around 10 mile RADIUS from Buellton, California. About 50 million years ago there was a volcanic disturbance that caused a mass extinction of these SEA BEDS & remains of the FISH were quickly covered with silt, mud & calcium carbonate, " Bill Brand- (fossil finder credit) Imaged with Sigma SD10 with 50mm Sigma EX Macro Lens. Edited February 28, 2011 by pleecan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acryzona Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Very nice photo Peter. I especially like the structure a bit below the eye and behind it (gills or scale?) Did Bill find other specimens? Collecting Microfossils - a hobby concerning much about many of the little paraphrased from Dr. Robert Kesling's book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm confused (not all that hard to do ); They are Miocene fish, found in an Eocene formation??? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Very nice photo Peter. I especially like the structure a bit below the eye and behind it (gills or scale?) Did Bill find other specimens? I think it is a pectoral fin... or gill cover.... but leaning towards a pectoral fin. I bought a bunch of pipe fish fossils from Bill and gluing some together as the contents was damaged during shipping... will be slowly posting one fossil at a time. PL Edited February 28, 2011 by pleecan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm confused (not all that hard to do ); They are Miocene fish, found in an Eocene formation??? Hi Auspex: I copied Bill's description for the fossils... my understanding is that these fossils are from an exposure that run along an earthquake fault line... I am not familiar with the geology of the area... maybe more informed members could chime in... PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Hi Auspex: I copied Bill's description for the fossils... my understanding is that these fossils are from an exposure that run along an earthquake fault line... I am not familiar with the geology of the area... maybe more informed members could chime in... PL Monterey Fm is Late-Middle to Upper Miocene. Cool thread Peter !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thanks Scott for the information ... this is an open forum so if anyone has fossils from this area please post. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 As promised Peter, here are a few interesting fossil seaweed specimens. These are from the Order Phaeophyta (brown algae/kelp). Specimens are found in associated deposits with the fossilized pipefish from the Miocene Monterey Formation, Santa Ynez Valley, CA. UCMP Berkeley has a superb website and section on this topic. Phaeophyta are very unusual and rare in the overall fossil record. LINK RE: Parker, B.C. and E.Y. Dawson. 1965, Nova Hedwigia 10:273-295. Non-calcareous marine algae from California marine deposits. indet sp. phaeophyte Julescraneia grandicornis* Paleocystophora acuminata Paleocystophora plumosa *Thought to be a transitional form of the modern bull kelp Nereocystis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 As promised Peter, here are a few interesting fossil seaweed specimens. These are from the Order Phaeophyta (brown algae/kelp). Specimens are found in associated deposits with the fossilized pipefish from the Miocene Monterey Formation, Santa Ynez Valley, CA. UCMP Berkeley has a superb website and section on this topic. Phaeophyta are very unusual and rare in the overall fossil record. LINK RE: Parker, B.C. and E.Y. Dawson. 1965, Nova Hedwigia 10:273-295. Non-calcareous marine algae from California marine deposits. indet sp. phaeophyte Julescraneia grandicornis* Paleocystophora acuminata Paleocystophora plumosa *Thought to be a transitional form of the modern bull kelp Nereocystis. Wow! Very nice Scott! nice details. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeopix Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Just got over a bad case of the flu and I had to do a double take on the Miocene age that Peter gave in the first post! I wasn't so sure about the 50 million year mark as being Miocene. Anyway, I checked my geological time scale and sure enough that flu medication was playing tricks on my brain. So what exactly is the relationship between the Eocene (50 Mya) Puente Formation and the Miocene Monterey Formation? Is there an unconformity along the fault line or was this a simple misunderstanding of the geology? Oh and bye the way, cool pipefish Peter! Another fine specimen for your ever expanding collection of various lagerstatten. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Just got over a bad case of the flu and I had to do a double take on the Miocene age that Peter gave in the first post! I wasn't so sure about the 50 million year mark as being Miocene. Anyway, I checked my geological time scale and sure enough that flu medication was playing tricks on my brain. So what exactly is the relationship between the Eocene (50 Mya) Puente Formation and the Miocene Monterey Formation? Is there an unconformity along the fault line or was this a simple misunderstanding of the geology? Oh and bye the way, cool pipefish Peter! Another fine specimen for your ever expanding collection of various lagerstatten. Dan Thanks Dan. I am begining to wonder if Bill has got the geology right wonder if it is Vaquero Formation instead of Puente Formation. I know that pipe fish is found in the Vaquero Formation. I plead ignorant of the proper geology of the area as this is all new material to me.... I am letting the glue set before photographing the fossil ...pipe fish not sure how many fossils need gluing together as it had a rough ride to Ontario from California.... Hope you are feeling better Dan.. being sick is no fun. PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeopix Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thanks Dan. I am begining to wonder if Bill has got the geology right wonder if it is Vaquero Formation instead of Puente Formation. I know that pipe fish is found in the Vaquero Formation. I plead ignorant of the proper geology of the area as this is all new material to me.... I am letting the glue set before photographing the fossil ...pipe fish not sure how many fossils need gluing together as it had a rough ride to Ontario from California.... Hope you are feeling better Dan.. being sick is no fun. PL Thanks Peter, feeling much better now! So you got a few specimens then? Can't wait to see them repaired. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Here is an unknown plant... hope that someone could shed some light... looks like so form of algae with ultrafine microstructures. And a Seahorse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Details of the unknown plant 4x plan objective and Nikon 995 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Continue: Plant debris: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeopix Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Continue: Plant debris: Um, is it just me or am I seeing fish remains in these photos? I think I'm seeing a coprolite of some sort that is composed of pipe fish vertebrae, ribs and perhaps even skull elements. Perhaps you could do a super closeup of the semi-whole pipe fish, because I think I see similarities to the structures in that specimen, Peter. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I think Dan is correct on disarticulated pipefish bits and pieces. Also worth pointing out that the fossil Phaeophyta I posted all came from the same source as Peter's lots of pipefish. My question is not about the age of these fossils but rather the relationship of the Puente Fm with the classic locale of the Monterey Fm. This might be a great opportunity to contact our member Zephyray that specialized in this area ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paleozoicfish Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I think Dan is correct on disarticulated pipefish bits and pieces. Also worth pointing out that the fossil Phaeophyta I posted all came from the same source as Peter's lots of pipefish. My question is not about the age of these fossils but rather the relationship of the Puente Fm with the classic locale of the Monterey Fm. This might be a great opportunity to contact our member Zephyray that specialized in this area ... Ok, good I was starting to wonder why his plant had vertebrae. Maybe I missed a few biology lessons... -PzF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The Monterey Formation overlies the Vaqueros Formation, other than that revelation I'm lost. A PM has just been sent to Zephyray, hopefully he will spare a moment to assist us shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thanks guys for the above observation... unknown15mm fossil is not a plant .... poop with fish bits.... the tiny bits reminded me of algae filaments... tiny vertabrate I think the next one maybe plant.... Dinoflagellate? Really bright colorsapprox. 2mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thanks for the document Scott! PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckpowell Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The name Monterey Formation is used for middle to upper Miocene age fine-grain usually biogenic rocks from southern through central California. In many areas the name has been misapplied - i.e., the rocks do not correlate with the type Monterey Formation exposed near Monterey, California. The Puente Formation refers to rocks in the Los Angles Basin also Miocene in age that are in part clastic and in part biogenetic. The Miocene extended from about 23 to 5.3 million years ago. Best, Chuck JSo what exactly is the relationship between the Eocene (50 Mya) Puente Formation and the Miocene Monterey Formation? Is there an unconformity along the fault line or was this a simple misunderstanding of the geology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The name Monterey Formation is used for middle to upper Miocene age fine-grain usually biogenic rocks from southern through central California. In many areas the name has been misapplied - i.e., the rocks do not correlate with the type Monterey Formation exposed near Monterey, California. The Puente Formation refers to rocks in the Los Angles Basin also Miocene in age that are in part clastic and in part biogenetic. The Miocene extended from about 23 to 5.3 million years ago. Best, Chuck Thank you Chuck, very glad to have you assisting us. Would you sort out the particulars for us with regard to the stratigraphic relationships of the fossils posted in this thread. As I pointed out, the phaeophyte fossils were collected by the same gentleman that finds the pipefish. My limited resources refer to the Monterey, Puente, Vaqueros formations and all of these as part of the Rincon Group. Is there a useful bulletin(s) encompassing these assemblages that you would recommend? The subject is intriguing so I'm grateful for any additional information you can share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Chuck and Scott: A big thank you for the additional information! Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hey Chuck, I've suspected for a long time that the "Monterey Formation" was simply applied to any fine-grained rocks in central and southern California of roughly Miocene age - it does seem like it would be a gargantuan task to revise Miocene "monterey" stratigraphy of california. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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