masonboro37 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) I am entering an Invert find that I had to prep some and put back together. I just finished it tonight. I found this partial internal mold of an Aturia angustata, Nautiloid, Castle Hayne Formation, Eocene on January 17, 2014 at a quarry in Eastern North Carolina. I have only found very small pieces of this evasive species here in NC. The size of this cast is exciting for me. I first saw just a curl along side the matrix. I started to slowly excavate the specimen. To my disappointment, not all of the specimen was there. This Nautiloid was embedded in a large exploded "boulder" of debris which had been transported from the other part of the quarry. I try to imagine how large this Nautiloid was. If anyone has an idea about that please let me know. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Cephalopoda Subclass: Nautiloidea First pic: In situ at the quarry... Second, third and fourth pic...put back together. Finally!~ Libby Edited January 25, 2014 by masonboro37 Process of identification "mistakes create wisdom". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adron Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Most folks won't appreciate how rare and the great condition of your tooth. I would have been extremely happy finding that tooth. Marco Sr. Thank you MarcoSr! It's true. Please google "Oxynotus centrina tooth" and tell me how many fossil teeth you found! (except mine of course) greetings Aaron Nullus finis longius si quod facis delectaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adron Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) ok, I will make an second entry. January was an awesome month for me. Today I found this perfect upper Somniosus tooth in my matrix of Antwerp, upper teeth are a lot more rare than lower teeth (which are also rare) Somniosus microcephalus (upper tooth) Antwerp, Belgium Pliocene age size: 1 cm found today (26th) greetings Aaron Edited January 26, 2014 by Adron Nullus finis longius si quod facis delectaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busyeagle Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Zarhachis Flagellator (tentative ID) Odontocete Rostrum With Teeth Calvert Formation Early Miocene (17-17.5 Ma) Found: Jan 17, 2014 Prep Completed: Jan 26, 2014 Note: This has been identified with confidence to be a platinistid (comparable to a modern river dolphin), but the genus and species are still up for debate. If it is in fact Zarhachis, it would apparently fill in a gap in the observed range of the species. This specimen includes both upper and lower jaws, all four of which were fused together during fossilization. There are 18 teeth remaining in place, and one additional loose tooth. The preservation of the bone is exceptionally good, and it is a rare bonus for teeth to be present. Two vertebrae, one of which is cervical, were found in apparent association with the rostrum. Before prep, and initial teeth sighting: After prep: Edited January 28, 2014 by busyeagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowat13 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Here is my first entry for the new year... One section of Sawfish Rostral Cartillage. This is Miocene in age, and is from the Bone Valley Formation. I found it when fossil hunting with a club that I belong to in a Mosaic owned pit on the 25th of January, 2014. Last photo was taken wet... It shows the surface pattern better. Thank you for considering this find of mine for FOTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prem Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Here is my vertebrate FOTM submission... in late December, my oldest son, Josh, and I were collecting at the Minkin Paleozoic Footprint Site along with members of the Alabama Paleontological Society. Josh split a shale boulder and found a two-toed impression of an Attenosaurus subulensis footprint, which was not a bad find at all. Here is the negative impression where the toes form ridges instead of depressions: Then, come mid-January, I was looking up information on this ichnotaxon and saw this picture, indicating how the fewer-toed impression was often the underprint from a normal, full impression: Since we had both part and counterpart of the print: I decided, with Josh's permission, of course, to explore the negative impression side (toes sticking out of he layer) for the full footprint, hoping not to destroy the underprint, but realizing that sometimes one must sacrifice things in the name of science. Along the very edge of the rock, about mid-way through the slab, I could see some slight scalloping, indicating that the other toe impressions were probably along that plane. I split along that plane...and...I could see parts of the toe impressions, but a stubborn chunk of rock clung to the center of the print.So, into a tub of water for numerous freeze/thaw cycles in the freezer, which weakened the chunk of rock clinging to the print. A few more chisel blows and some fine cleanup with the dremel engraver gave us this beauty: And the negative two-toed impression is on the other side, giving a nice demonstrable specimen of a track with an underprint a few cm below. Then we still have the positive counterpart with the two-toed impression as well. A very nice fossil, indeed. Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation, Union Chapel Mine (Minkin Paleozoic Footprint Site), Jasper, AL, USA. ---Prem Edited January 31, 2014 by prem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasFossilHunter Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Wow, prem that's awesome! Great how your research paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prem Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Just to clarify, so no one thinks I am trying to do an end-run around the FOTM rules, my son found the underprint in December, while I located and prepped the main footprint in the layers above the underprint in mid-late January. ---Prem Edited January 31, 2014 by prem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 Just to clarify, so no one thinks I am trying to do an end-run around the FOTM rules, my son found the underprint in December, while I located and prepped the main footprint in the layers above the underprint in mid-late January. The use of the term "we" from the sentence "We decided to explore the negative impression side..." on, really described my actions whilst Josh looked on. ---Prem It was not discovered until you "found" it. Your entry is valid. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts