roadbuilder Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I found this cool snail shell fossil in north central Arkansas, where i am working on a road job involving lots of cuts down into the rock.Ive found several nice Lepedodendron fossils in the sandstone, but this shell came out of what i believe to be a much newer strata of softer rock. The actual outer shell looks like the original material with rock filling in the inside. Is that possible or am I way off base?
snakebite6769 Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Gastropod..perhaps. Neat looking find though congrats
Auspex Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 The images are a bit fuzzy, but I think it is a nautiloid. "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!
BobWill Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Welcome to the forum. I agree with cephalopod just based on the shape but snails can coil in a stationary plane like that. We need better focus on the details to tell whether it's a nautiloid or ammonoid. It looks like there is some ornamentation on the outer surface, faint ribs, but I can't make out any sutures. If you are right about the shell being preserved or even mineralized then we wouldn't see sutures since they only show on an internal mold. Also if you could show us a view of the aperture from the edge it may help with an ID.
howard_l Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 It is an Ammonoid Cephalopod most likely Mississippian in age but with plant remains being found it could be Pennsylvanian in age. Arkansas has very nice Mississippian units that contain Cephalopods. Howard_L http://triloman.wix.com/kentucky-fossils
roadbuilder Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 Thanks everyone. I wish I were able to provide a clearer image, but that's about the best my phone can do. Here is one more pic.
Guest Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 It looks like one of the Goniatites to me, but I don't know which species it is. Nice specimen!
howard_l Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 If you can tell what age it is or give the group a location of where it was found the age can be determined. Once an age is determined some one might be able to identify what type of Goniatite ammonoid it is. The snail guess wasn't to far off they are both molluscs but in my oppion Cephalopods are way cooler. Howard_L http://triloman.wix.com/kentucky-fossils
erose Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Thanks everyone. I wish I were able to provide a clearer image, but that's about the best my phone can do. Here is one more pic. Shooting in bright sunlight and not hand holding the specimen will sharpen up the image. You get a sharp fast exposure that way.
Herb Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 It is an Ammonoid Cephalopod most likely Mississippian in age but with plant remains being found it could be Pennsylvanian in age. Arkansas has very nice Mississippian units that contain Cephalopods. I agree, but it is a nice specimen. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ Carl Sagen No trees were killed in this posting......however, many innocent electrons were diverted from where they originally intended to go. " I think, therefore I collect fossils." _ Me "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."__S. Holmes "can't we all just get along?" Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks
howard_l Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 One other thought, were there any other fossils found with the goniatite. If you did find some take photos of them and post them, they might help determine the age which in turn would help identify the goniatite. Howard_L http://triloman.wix.com/kentucky-fossils
roadbuilder Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 I was only able to find one other fossil that came from this layer of rock. Looks to me like a fragment of a different but similarly sized shelled creature. The rock its self is a flakey type with lots a multicolored layers. I'll post a pic of some of the rocks i picked up so you can see what im talking about. All the tree fossils I found came from sandstone layers that were deeper down. I may post some of them on here anyway.
Auspex Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 ...The rock its self is a flakey type with lots a multicolored layers.... These are siderite (ironstone) concretions, weathering into limonite. Strata containing them are commonly associated with the overburden of coal seams. Under the right conditions, they can contain fossils (the organic remains being the nucleating agent for these concretions). "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!
howard_l Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 The fragment is from another ammonoid. If you are finding abundant pant fossils in a layer below were the cephalopods came from they are more than likely Pennsylvanian in age. Howard_L http://triloman.wix.com/kentucky-fossils
Wrangellian Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Further photo tips to what erose said: I am not a cellphone user but apparently if your subject is too close to the lens it won't focus (that's the case with my regular camera, if I don't have the right lens on). Try backing it off some, and if there is a setting for higher versus lower quality/resolution images, set it for high quality, then it will still be detailed even if it is further away and takes up a smaller part of the image and you crop it.
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