Show Us Your Fossils Challenge Mode: Ordered By Geologic Time Period!

[Tidgy's Dad]

Solenopora filiformis, possible red algae or pleosponge, Wren's Nest, Dudley, West midlands, UK . 

Moch Wenlock Limestone Formation, Middle Silurian.

[Pleuromya]

The dark rings in these images are hyphae of the fungus Glomites rhyniensis, in the cortex of the plant Aglaophyton major. It was a mutualistic fungus, but may have been saprotrophic after the plant's death. Glomites rhyniensis grew arbuscles into the host's cells in order to exchange nutrients. 

 

From the lower Devonian Rhynie Chert of Rhynie, Scotland. 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Pleuromya

[oscarinelpiedras]

Upper Carboniferous

 

Neuropteris ovata var. Hoffman leave from León, Spain. With a great color doubt to some oxids.

[rocket]

three Palaeoniscids in nodules, permian, Heimkirchen, Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

Each one is between 10 and 13 cm

 

[Wrangellian]

21 hours ago, siteseer said:

If you have a lot of Cretaceous fossils stage-by-stage, I think you should either revisit your thread and make it known that you welcome the participation of others.  Ammonite collectors might be interested in something like that.  You don't see a lot of pre-Albian Cretaceous shark teeth on the market or available through trades (I might have just 2 or 3 Aptian-age teeth) so you wouldn't get much participation from shark/vertebrate collectors until the Albian.  However, like you said, it might not be as popular as this thread.  I think the key to a long thread like this one is its simplicity.  There's a Cambrian fossil and here's an Ordovician one.  Oh look, a Miocene fossil, I can post my Pliocene one.  It's fun.  However, when someone drops a Cenomanian fossil on the thread and then it's time for a Turonian one, then you have to do some homework and maybe run into a specimen that comes from a formation that ranges from Cenomanian to Turonian.  That's going to seem like a hassle to some but others would like the challenge so I think you should try it and see how it goes.

It's true the Cretaceous is longer than the Cenozoic but a lot of Cenozoic is exposed around the world because much of the older rocks have been eroded away or subducted.  In California there are Cretaceous sites but it's been a lot easier to find Miocene-Pleistocene fossils.  In fact most of my collection is Miocene partly because of that.

I don't want to belabour it, but just to be clear, the idea is not to require a fossil from every consecutive stage, but from any succeeding age (stage) or epoch within a period, or the next period. If we required every successive stage to be represented, the thing would soon come to a stop because hardly anyone has a Fortunian fossil, for example. I was not thinking of my own collection - most of my Cretaceous stuff is Santonian, with some Campanian, and little of anything else. Someone else might have a lot of Aptian or Albian and little of anything else. If one is quicker at posting, the other keeps being preempted. To me there does seem to be a lot of Cretaceous out there generally (and Jurassic for that matter, and a few others). It's not a bad thing in my book to encourage people to figure out the stage of their fossil and include that bit of info in the post, rather than just saying 'Cretaceous'. If they don't know whether it's from the Cenomanian or Turonian, but they know it's from one of those two, then they can only post it if the previous post came from somewhere prior to the Cenomanian, and then the next person would have to post something from the Coniacian or later (Paleocene even). If it's a hassle, they won't bother, they can just post something from the next period.

I don't know if this will result in someone who has something from almost every stage of the Jurassic or Cretaceous to hog the whole succession by posting umpteen fossils in a row - I couldn't do more than a few in a row, and thus far I have refrained from posting more than one at a time. (If it were up to me I would not allow one person to post more than one at a time unless a certain amount of time (a day?) goes by, but I realize that was not expressly forbidden in the beginning.) If it causes problems, we can always revert back to the old protocol. If I post something from within the same period, I will explain what I'm doing, at least the first few times, and will recommend others do the same.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Wrangellian

[siteseer]

Well, the original idea is that we go period by period until we get to the Cenozoic and then we go epoch by epoch and we should stick to that but no one will get penalized for posting three Cretaceous fossils in a row.  It's just going to look weird to anyone not familiar with that departure from that original idea if there is no explanation each time.  Two or three pages later, anyone new to the thread is not going to read back that far and is not going to understand why some time units are getting multiple posts.  I could do multiple posts for the Eocene and Miocene.  The Paleocene, Oligocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene are divided into stages as well.  I'm actually not against the multiple stage/age posts but I think that could be done better in a separate thread just for that.  With that said, I don't think too many people are going to do that anyway.  It would be educational but only if there's some explanation with it.  I look at this thread as more of a fun one though I try to add some description with my posts if the specimen or its locality bears something interesting to say about it.  I like the associations people have been posting. 

 

As a side note, I liked that one contributor had been following along and noticed that plants were relatively underrepresented in this geologic scale racetrack we have going and added one.  I don't have a lot of plant fossils but I'm going to post the ones I do have at some point because of that observation as part of my own attempt to throw in a variety of fossils

 

Someone posting two periods in a row doesn't bother me.  If you have the Paleocene and Eocene ready to go (for example), smoke 'em if you got 'em.  It is difficult to get in a post sometimes so I understand members are just getting in what they have when they can.  The Cenozoic seems to fly by within an hour each time and suddenly we're back to the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian.

[Ludwigia]

This one is from the Middle Triassic Ladinian so-called "Grenz-Bonebed" in the Upper Muschelkalk Formation. I got this from a fellow collector who dug it out of an outcrop at the Zwingelhausen quarry in Backnang, southern Germany. He wasn't sure about it's identity and me too, but we've tentatively called it a piece of the clavicle from a Mastodonsaurus sp. 6cm. long.

 

 

[Ludwigia]

And while I'm at it, I might just as well post an Early Jurassic plant fossil, since @siteseer would like to see more of them here. A Nilssoniopteris sp. leaf in pos. & neg. preservation from a sand pit in the Pechgraben in Bavaria. Hettangian Bayreuth Formation. 10. cm. long.

 

[hemipristis]

Oxybeloceras sp.  heteromorph ammonites

Cretaceous Mount Laurel Formation, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, New Castle County, Delaware, USA

 

[siteseer]

9 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

And while I'm at it, I might just as well post an Early Jurassic plant fossil, since @siteseer would like to see more of them here. A Nilssoniopteris sp. leaf in pos. & neg. preservation from a sand pit in the Pechgraben in Bavaria. Hettangian Bayreuth Formation. 10. cm. long.

 

 

Wow, nice contrast between the leaf and the matrix.  It almost looks like something from the John Day of Oregon.

 

[siteseer]

Carcharias sp. - tooth of an extinct species of sand tiger shark

Early Paleocene

Lower Hornerstown Formation

near Cream Ridge, Monmouth County, New Jersey

18 mm along the longest slant height

 

 

[Ludwigia]

52 minutes ago, siteseer said:

 

Wow, nice contrast between the leaf and the matrix.  It almost looks like something from the John Day of Oregon.

 

 

Never heard of that one before, but now that I've googled it, it looks like a nice place to visit.

[Paleorunner]

From the Eocene - Lutecian. Damery - Paris - France.
A gastropod, Clavilithes noae  5,2 cm + Glycymeris, bivalve, , and remains of other mollusc shells.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Paleorunner

[Wrangellian]

21 hours ago, siteseer said:

Well, the original idea is that we go period by period until we get to the Cenozoic and then we go epoch by epoch and we should stick to that but no one will get penalized for posting three Cretaceous fossils in a row.  It's just going to look weird to anyone not familiar with that departure from that original idea if there is no explanation each time.  Two or three pages later, anyone new to the thread is not going to read back that far and is not going to understand why some time units are getting multiple posts.  I could do multiple posts for the Eocene and Miocene.  The Paleocene, Oligocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene are divided into stages as well.  I'm actually not against the multiple stage/age posts but I think that could be done better in a separate thread just for that.  With that said, I don't think too many people are going to do that anyway.  It would be educational but only if there's some explanation with it.  I look at this thread as more of a fun one though I try to add some description with my posts if the specimen or its locality bears something interesting to say about it.  I like the associations people have been posting. 

 

As a side note, I liked that one contributor had been following along and noticed that plants were relatively underrepresented in this geologic scale racetrack we have going and added one.  I don't have a lot of plant fossils but I'm going to post the ones I do have at some point because of that observation as part of my own attempt to throw in a variety of fossils

 

Someone posting two periods in a row doesn't bother me.  If you have the Paleocene and Eocene ready to go (for example), smoke 'em if you got 'em.  It is difficult to get in a post sometimes so I understand members are just getting in what they have when they can.  The Cenozoic seems to fly by within an hour each time and suddenly we're back to the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian.

Some valid points... The whole Mesozoic seems to fly by too - I still don't think I have gotten any Cretaceous ones in because it's always gone by while I'm online... not that it's any skin off my nose, really, and I was thinking of other members too. But the timescale is rather arbitrarily drawn up, or at least the decision to go by epochs after the Cretaceous seems arbitrary, as there is certainly a lot more Cretaceous material out there than Paleocene. To me it would seem less unbalanced if we either split the Cret. into Lower and Upper, or went by periods in the Cenozoic (Paleogene, Neogene, Quaternary). Yes, the Cenozoic epochs are divided into stages also, and that's fair game, I would think. Anyway, I don't know if many people will insert later stages into an already-posted period, either, but I doubt there will be many problems, and if there are we can politely remind people as needed. I don't really want to start a new thread that is merely a close copy of this one with one different minor detail, and if I required each successive stage to be represented, it will quickly stop, as I said, because some stages have few fossils available. Even if we continue to go by periods and Cenozoic epochs, we could run out of Permian or Paleocene before any of the others, though I don't know when that will happen (maybe not for a long time and maybe never if we get new members coming in now and then).

One person posting two periods in a row isn't so bad but some were posting 4 in a row and then it would quickly come back to the Precambrian and stop, and I was being pressured to post another Precambrian item so that they could start the race again. That's one of the things that prompted me to propose the change to allow later (st)ages with a period. (It helps to make the PC optional.) I don't mean to make a big deal out of this as I'm not participating as much as some others are.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Wrangellian

[FranzBernhard]

Considering some of the aspects discussed above, here is an update of the rules:

- Specimens are uploaded in stratigraphic order, from oldest to youngest (point!).

- Use a stratigraphic division as precise as you have for your specimen.

- Next specimen should be younger, how much, does not matter, as long as it is not younger than the next system/period.

(For example, Eifelian could be followed by Givetian or something Upper Devonian (or Frasnian or Famennian, if known) or something Carboniferous (or something with better known stratigraphy within the Carboniferous).

- Post as many specimens in a series as you like, but maybe not more than 4? No strict rule there, but points are given only for the first of your series .

- Don´t forget size (point!), how you acquired your specimen (point!) and any extra info you wish to share (1-2 points!).

- Have fun, educate and let you educate .

For reference, here is a link to the stratigraphic chart:

International stratigraphic chart 2021

Franz Bernhard

[siteseer]

Here's a partial lizard skull I collected on the Shalimar Ranch in Sioux County, Nebraska in 1991 (or '92).  I had been walking and clambering around and sat to rest for a bit, not finding much.  I noticed a little rock next to me and something made me roll it over and saw the teeth.  Some might say it was the find of the day.  It was just great to have a day in the Oligocene - a rare time in my collecting life.  Most of my hunting has been in the Miocene with some Pliocene (less Cambrian, Pennsylvanian, Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Pleistocene). 

 

unidentified lizard skull

Early Oligocene

Brule Formation

Shalimar Ranch, Sioux County, Nebraska (ranch now called something else under different ownership)

22mm long

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by siteseer
additional thought

[siteseer]

Here's a calcaneum (heel bone) of a camel.  I didn't recall anyone posting one of these in this thread before and I try to toss in some different things.  It's tough/impossible to refer this bone to a particular genus especially since camels were more diverse at the time.

 

camel - calcaneum

Late Miocene (Clarendonian age)

river deposit

Cherry County, Nebraska

just under 4 7/8 inches (12.4cm) long

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by siteseer

[rocket]

6 minutes ago, siteseer said:

Here's a partial lizard skull I collected on the Shalimar Ranch in Sioux County, Nebraska in 1991 (or '92).  I had been walking a clambering around and sat to rest for a bit, not finding much.  I noticed a little rock next to me and something made me roll it over and saw the teeth.  Some might say it was the find of the day.  It was just great to have a day in the Oligocene - a rare time in my collecting life.  Most of my hunting has been in the Miocene with some Pliocene (less Cambrian, Pennsylvanian, Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Pleistocene). 

 

unidentified lizard skull

Early Oligocene

Brule Formation

Shalimar Ranch, Sioux County, Nebraska (ranch now called something else under different ownership)

22mm long

 

 

 

 

wow, that´s cool, have never had one (asked around for an unprepped one some years ago but no one likes to give one away or has one...). But, have a Squirrel, next round when Oligocene comes and I am fast enough I will post. So, I will wait and eat something

[siteseer]

3 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Some valid points... The whole Mesozoic seems to fly by too - I still don't think I have gotten any Cretaceous ones in because it's always gone by while I'm online... not that it's any skin off my nose, really, and I was thinking of other members too. But the timescale is rather arbitrarily drawn up, or at least the decision to go by epochs after the Cretaceous seems arbitrary, as there is certainly a lot more Cretaceous material out there than Paleocene. To me it would seem less unbalanced if we either split the Cret. into Lower and Upper, or went by periods in the Cenozoic (Paleogene, Neogene, Quaternary). Yes, the Cenozoic epochs are divided into stages also, and that's fair game, I would think. Anyway, I don't know if many people will insert later stages into an already-posted period, either, but I doubt there will be many problems, and if there are we can politely remind people as needed. I don't really want to start a new thread that is merely a close copy of this one with one different minor detail, and if I required each successive stage to be represented, it will quickly stop, as I said, because some stages have few fossils available. Even if we continue to go by periods and Cenozoic epochs, we could run out of Permian or Paleocene before any of the others, though I don't know when that will happen (maybe not for a long time and maybe never if we get new members coming in now and then).

One person posting two periods in a row isn't so bad but some were posting 4 in a row and then it would quickly come back to the Precambrian and stop, and I was being pressured to post another Precambrian item so that they could start the race again. That's one of the things that prompted me to propose the change to allow later (st)ages with a period. (It helps to make the PC optional.) I don't mean to make a big deal out of this as I'm not participating as much as some others are.

 

Oh yeah, it's tough to get in a Mesozoic fossil.  The Triassic seems to be a speed bump and then the Jurassic and Cretaceous are gone within an hour and it always seems to happen when I'm asleep or a couple of hours before I check the forum in the morning (or when I'm watching football).

 

The old Cenozoic periods were Tertiary and Quaternary and then Paleogene and Neogene were proposed later.  I like going by epochs mostly because I have an understanding of what went on epoch-by-epoch and I have a number of fossils representing that for each epoch.  Don't worry about running out of Paleocene fossils because I have plenty.  It might become a parade of sand tiger shark teeth at some point but I have the Paleocene covered.  It's just a matter of taking the photos.  I figured we would run out of Precambrian before anything else.  The Permian does seem to be a speed bump sometimes and there's a lag at the Oligocene from time to time as well.

 

It's good to talk about the thread outside of adding to it.  I would just prefer to stick to Meargle's original vision and keep it simple, but hey, if someone wants to go nuts, go for it.  As I've said before, I haven't minded when people have done 2 or 3 in a row because it's hard to get in a post at times.  I've had a Devonian one sitting for over a month and a Carboniferous one for longer than that.  It's just the luck of the draw.  I can wait, and in the meantime, poke around in my collection to see what else I can post that hasn't been posted.

[siteseer]

37 minutes ago, rocket said:

 

wow, that´s cool, have never had one (asked around for an unprepped one some years ago but no one likes to give one away or has one...). But, have a Squirrel, next round when Oligocene comes and I am fast enough I will post. So, I will wait and eat something

 

Yeah, it's tough to get anyone to let go of a lizard skull.  I had to find my own.  It's eroded on the other side so I showed the good side.  I'd like to see the squirrel.

 

It was great to be out there (northwestern Nebraska).  It was so quiet miles away from a paved road.  I wandered around with my eyes to the ground picking up bits of things (a couple of Leptomeryx jaw sections, a Mesohippus jaw section, a small artiodactyl astragulus and what looks like a tiny calcaneum and toe bone) and came upon a bunch of "exploded" turtles - Oligocene shells that had been exposed and were largely eroded - not salvageable.  I checked them for bones but they were gone.  You usually just find the shell.  It was quite a sight.

[hemipristis]

A large Hemipristis serra, Pliocene, from southern Luzon, Philippines

[siteseer]

 

I just realized that I'd already posted the Dendraster diegoensis so I'm replacing the specimen as my Pleistocene entry with an odd bird beak from Late Pleistocene tar seeps in Kern County, California.  The locality wasn't given to me (either Maricopa or McKittrick - probably the latter).  It's about 1 13/16 inches (45mm) measured along its longest dimension.  I thought it could be a large hawk or owl beak but Auspex was thinking parrot.

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by siteseer
additional thought

[Herb]

Pleistocene. Peat bog pond in Dayton, Ohio, USA

[ClearLake]

@Herb  That is very neat!  I'm curious, did you find any micro-vertebrate material in the peat bog sample?  Back in graduate school, I tried to find micro-vertebrates in northern Indiana Pleistocene deposits but came up empty.

[Wrangellian]

21 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

Considering some of the aspects discussed above, here is an update of the rules:

- Specimens are uploaded in stratigraphic order, from oldest to youngest (point!).

- Use a stratigraphic division as precise as you have for your specimen.

- Next specimen should be younger, how much, does not matter, as long as it is not younger than the next system/period.

(For example, Eifelian could be followed by Givetian or something Upper Devonian (or Frasnian or Famennian, if known) or something Carboniferous (or something with better known stratigraphy within the Carboniferous).

- Post as many specimens in a series as you like, but maybe not more than 4? No strict rule there, but points are given only for the first of your series .

- Don´t forget size (point!), how you acquired your specimen (point!) and any extra info you wish to share (1-2 points!).

- Have fun, educate and let you educate .

For reference, here is a link to the stratigraphic chart:

International stratigraphic chart 2021

Franz Bernhard

Thanks Franz, that's exactly what I had in mind. I hope we don't get in trouble... If Meargle comes back and feels strongly about sticking with the original plan, I guess we can rescind this.     It will be interesting to see how it plays out, who will take advantage, or if everyone just continues the old way as it looks like they are, except for the duplicate Pleistocene above which are probably not consecutive stages, so I assume it was a mistake. Oh well, we're back to the Precambrian again and I am low on pics of my Precambrian stuff.  @PR0GRAM do you have any more?

Edited December 12, 2022 by Wrangellian