siteseer Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yeah, the Puente is Luisian but that's about 15 million years old (not 50). We talked about the pipefish in another thread: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php/topic/8858-lets-see-your-fishes/page__st__40 I was given a really nice specimen by a friend who found it and other specimens. He told me it was Early Miocene, Vaqueros Formation, collected near Santa Maria, CA. This info was confirmed by another longtime CA collector, though of course, it's possible these fish could be found in other exposures of the formation elsewhere or other formations representing the same environment of different ages. Pipefish are rarely found as fossils (known only from a few deposits worldwide). As I mentioned in that other thread, I have seen seaweed fossils in Orange County (possibly the Monterey Fm.) and have also seen some in the Monterey (Aguajito Shale Member) near Carmel, CA. "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hi again all! And thanks to Piranha for the invite. Sorry it took so long to get back. My daughter had a day off from school today so we went for a hike on Pine Mtn. in SLO county. From the top you can see the North American plate and beyong that the snow capped Sierras. You can also see the flat central valley where the Temblor sea once stood. Unfortuately I'm not an expert though I am interested in the age under discussion. Pleecan mentioned the Luisian being 50 Ma but I wondering if perhaps this information may have been conveyed verbally and perhaps misunderstood. The Luisian stage was 15.5 - 13.5 Ma according to the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). 15 may have sounded like 50. Here's a handy site I found called Macrostrat. As you can see it has a lot of great information on formations. http://macrostrat.geology.wisc.edu/unit_list.php According to it the Puente Formation lasts a lot longer than just the Middle Miocene. I found the below article as well which appears to discuss stratigraphic relations of the various formations. Unfortunately I saw a new note I'd not seen before on PDFs several times in my research for this reply. Looks like they are starting to charge more frequently for these things. What happened to net neutrality? Formational Correlations Within the California Province: II. Correlation and Age http://tinyurl.com/6hsypbs Here's Google's cache of it. Well see how long it lasts... http://tinyurl.com/65gxycc About the specific fossils I can't help much. But they don't look like coprolites to me as I doubt that impressions would look like that after coming out of the butt end of something. But then again, as I said I'm not an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hi again all! And thanks to Piranha for the invite. Sorry it took so long to get back. My daughter had a day off from school today so we went for a hike on Pine Mtn. in SLO county. From the top you can see the North American plate and beyong that the snow capped Sierras. You can also see the flat central valley where the Temblor sea once stood. Unfortuately I'm not an expert though I am interested in the age under discussion. Pleecan mentioned the Luisian being 50 Ma but I wondering if perhaps this information may have been conveyed verbally and perhaps misunderstood. The Luisian stage was 15.5 - 13.5 Ma according to the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). 15 may have sounded like 50. Here's a handy site I found called Macrostrat. As you can see it has a lot of great information on formations. http://macrostrat.ge...u/unit_list.php According to it the Puente Formation lasts a lot longer than just the Middle Miocene. I found the below article as well which appears to discuss stratigraphic relations of the various formations. Unfortunately I saw a new note I'd not seen before on PDFs several times in my research for this reply. Looks like they are starting to charge more frequently for these things. What happened to net neutrality? Formational Correlations Within the California Province: II. Correlation and Age http://tinyurl.com/6hsypbs Here's Google's cache of it. Well see how long it lasts... http://tinyurl.com/65gxycc About the specific fossils I can't help much. But they don't look like coprolites to me as I doubt that impressions would look like that after coming out of the butt end of something. But then again, as I said I'm not an expert. Thanks Zephyray for taking the time to post, and for the clarification on the strata. ... 15Ma The original discriptor was copied direct from Bill's ad on Ebay... but I am glad the correct info is now posted. PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Yeah, the Puente is Luisian but that's about 15 million years old (not 50). We talked about the pipefish in another thread: http://www.thefossil...es/page__st__40 I was given a really nice specimen by a friend who found it and other specimens. He told me it was Early Miocene, Vaqueros Formation, collected near Santa Maria, CA. This info was confirmed by another longtime CA collector, though of course, it's possible these fish could be found in other exposures of the formation elsewhere or other formations representing the same environment of different ages. Pipefish are rarely found as fossils (known only from a few deposits worldwide). As I mentioned in that other thread, I have seen seaweed fossils in Orange County (possibly the Monterey Fm.) and have also seen some in the Monterey (Aguajito Shale Member) near Carmel, CA. Thanks for the info and link! PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 Finished Gluing the various fossil plates together.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 More pics: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Thank You Peter ... I have never seen one of the California pipefish imaged so beautifully !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Thank You Peter ... I have never seen one of the California pipefish imaged so beautifully !! You are welcome Scott. This is one of a dozen fossils from this region. I had t repair the fractured plate as the fossils had a rough journey to Canada... many were broken in transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Shark teeth from Santa Ynez River Valley collected by Bill Brand.... Anyone familiar with ID for this shark teeth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 A very knowledgeble forum member has PM me with some insights with regards to the Shark Teeth: "Can't help you with the IDs. But...I can give you some geological background on the finds, at least. True, the teeth are almost certainly from the Miocene, but they aren't from the Puente Formation. That's a late Miocene formation exposed in the Los Angeles Basin region, well over a hundred miles south of the Santa Ynez fault. When I lived in the Los Angeles area many years ago, I used to visit a noted outcrop of the Puente Formation, where I always managed to find several nice fossil fish preserved on a white diatomaceous shale. Your shark tooth matrix looks like an iron-rich sandstone-facies from the Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed, actually. If it's indeed from the "Santa Yzez fault" area, the teeth are probably from the Miocene Santa Margarita Formation, which is a little younger in geologic age than the Temblor Formation that preserved the famed Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed near Bakersfield, California. Another possibility is a sandstone bed in the middle Miocene Miocene Monterey Formation. The Santa Margarita Formation in the Santa Cruz, California, district (north of Buellton) produces shark teeth, including specimens from the following critters: shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), mackerel shark (Isurus planus), a second mackerel shark (Isurus hastalis), bigtooth shark (Carcharocles megalodon), snaggletooth shark (Hemipristis serra), tiger shark (Galeocerdo sp.), ragged-tooth shark (Odontaspis sp.)and gray shark (Carcharhinus sp.). Plus, teeth of the bat ray (Myliobatis sp.)" I am extremely grateful to this individual.... THANK YOU. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilshale Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 There is a nice publication about "Miocene Fishes of Southern California" by Lore Rose David, published by the Geological Society of America, Special Papers Number 43 (January 16, 1943). 190+ pages. Found it at eBay for less than 5 bucks. If someone is interested in a pdf, please send a PM. Thomas Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes (Confucius, 551 BC - 479 BC). 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