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

[DarasFossils]

1 hour ago, rocket said:

 

interesting, not many of this type known and there is always a discussion about it... Does it have fine structure?

You can see a lot of small fish verts under a microscope and some other random fragments. Not sure if that is what you mean by fine structure.

[hemipristis]

11 hours ago, historianmichael said:

It is an index fossil of the Navesink so it is not from the Mt Laurel of the C&D Canal

I beg your pardon, but I personally collected all of the recently-posted microfossils (corals, echinoderms, and both brachiopods) from the C&D Canal.

 

Further, they are listed in the Delaware Geological Survey publication as present in the Mount Laurel spoils there: https://www.dgs.udel.edu/delaware-geology/cretaceous-fossils-cd-canal.

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by hemipristis

[historianmichael]

52 minutes ago, hemipristis said:

I beg your pardon, but I personally collected all of the recently-posted microfossils (corals, echinoderms, and both brachiopods) from the C&D Canal.

 

Further, they are listed in the Delaware Geological Survey publication as present in the Mount Laurel spoils there: https://www.dgs.udel.edu/delaware-geology/cretaceous-fossils-cd-canal.

 

You collected the Choristothyris plicata in the Mount Laurel spoils along the Canal? That is very strange since it is an index fossil for the Navesink. It is possible that the dredging you collected from contained a mix of Navesink and Mount Laurel.

[hemipristis]

12 minutes ago, historianmichael said:

You collected the Choristothyris plicata in the Mount Laurel spoils along the Canal? That is very strange since it is an index fossil for the Navesink. It is possible that the dredging you collected from contained a mix of Navesink and Mount Laurel.

 

 I collected all the fossils shown at the canal, yes, but I cannot vouch for the ID.  That was Al Dente’s call, though it’s a dead ringer based upon the images I’m seeing on the net.

 

Mixing of formations is highly likely.  It was found in an area where the other micros were found, which are attributed to the Mt Laurel. However, the dredging was hardly a delicate operation. No doubt there is a lot of jumbling.  The Navesink is limited but present in the subsurface in the area.

[historianmichael]

18 minutes ago, hemipristis said:

 I collected all the fossils shown at the canal, yes, but I cannot vouch for the ID.  That was Al Dente’s call, though it’s a dead ringer based upon the images I’m seeing on the net.

 

Mixing of formations is highly likely.  It was found in an area where the other micros were found, which are attributed to the Mt Laurel. However, the dredging was hardly a delicate operation. No doubt there is a lot of jumbling.  The Navesink is limited but present in the subsurface in the area.

The C&D Canal is a cool place to collect and your finds from there are quite impressive. I agree with Al Dente's identification of the brachiopod as Choristothyris plicata. I am just pointing out that that specific fossil, unlike the other ones you have posted, is not from the Mount Laurel Formation, but is rather from the Navesink. Contamination either from other collectors or the dredging process happens. 

[hemipristis]

2 hours ago, historianmichael said:

The C&D Canal is a cool place to collect and your finds from there are quite impressive. I agree with Al Dente's identification of the brachiopod as Choristothyris plicata. I am just pointing out that that specific fossil, unlike the other ones you have posted, is not from the Mount Laurel Formation, but is rather from the Navesink. Contamination either from other collectors or the dredging process happens. 

I used the DGS publication to ID the inverts, and the brachiopod in question wasn’t listed, hence my lack of ID in the original post.  Interestingly, the various DGS pubs give the Navesink a rather short thrift. “Present in the subsurface” is about the extent of its mention in some, while others describe the lithology, but  no mention of it’s either being fossiliferous or the fossils present.

[historianmichael]

7 hours ago, hemipristis said:

I used the DGS publication to ID the inverts, and the brachiopod in question wasn’t listed, hence my lack of ID in the original post.  Interestingly, the various DGS pubs give the Navesink a rather short thrift. “Present in the subsurface” is about the extent of its mention in some, while others describe the lithology, but  no mention of it’s either being fossiliferous or the fossils present.

For more information about the stratigraphy and paleontology of the canal, check out USGS Paper 674

[Fossil_Adult]

Here goes a Paleocene fossil! This one was found fairly recently and it’s my largest complete ray plate I’ve got in my collection so far. 
 

I don’t know if this species is identifiable but if it is, I would like someone with some Paleocene stingray expertise to chime in. 

[Jeffrey P]

On 1/5/2023 at 6:00 PM, Missourian said:

Liroceras ?milleri

Winterset Limestone, Kasimovian/Missourian Stage, Pennsylvanian, Carboniferous

Kansas City, Missouri, USA

 

The living chamber is complete on this one.

 

 

That's an extraordinary specimen! Congratulations. 

[JamieLynn]

Eocene of Texas 

Coral Discotrochus orbignyanus

Size 1/4 inch

 

 

[opalbug]

Teredinidae

Oligocene

Alsea Formation

Lincoln County, OR, USA

 

The whole specimen is about 3 inches across

The individual burrow filled with minerals is 5 mm

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by opalbug

[JamieLynn]

Miocene of Maryland

Stingray Dermal

Size 1 inch

[hemipristis]

11 hours ago, historianmichael said:

For more information about the stratigraphy and paleontology of the canal, check out USGS Paper 674

thanks!

[hemipristis]

On 1/9/2023 at 10:27 AM, Fossil_Adult said:

Here goes a Paleocene fossil! This one was found fairly recently and it’s my largest complete ray plate I’ve got in my collection so far. 
 

I don’t know if this species is identifiable but if it is, I would like someone with some Paleocene stingray expertise to chime in. 

Where is it from?

[hemipristis]

On 1/9/2023 at 1:38 PM, JamieLynn said:

Eocene of Texas 

Coral Discotrochus orbignyanus

Size 1/4 inch

 

 

 

I have a growing appreciation for micros! (just as my eyesight is diminishing, lol)

[JamieLynn]

@hemipristis Micros are my obsession! Fossil hunting from the comfort of my home, and there are SO MANY TINY THINGs that people totally overlook!

[Fossil_Adult]

2 hours ago, hemipristis said:

Where is it from?

Purse State Park. 

[hemipristis]

2 hours ago, Fossil_Adult said:

Purse State Park. 

I suspected. Very nice

[historianmichael]

Placopecten clintonius 

Early Pliocene

Yorktown Formation

Virginia

 

[Missourian]

Bison teeth

Bison sp.

Kansas River alluvium, Pleistocene

Wyandotte County, Kansas, USA

 

[Missourian]

Precambrian placeholder...

 

Rhyolite

Proterozoic

Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park, Reynolds County, Missouri, USA

 

A shut-in is a narrow constriction of a valley that forms where a stream cuts through a localized knob of extremely tough rhyolite.

 

This is a wonderful swimming hole when the Black River isn't raging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GreatHoatzin]

The common Elrathia kingii from Utah, Mid-Cambrian, ~1 inch long

[DarasFossils]

The jewel of my trilobite collection, reminds me of Moon and Stars

Selenopeltis Trilobites and Petraster Starfish

Upper Ordovician 

Upper Tiouririne Formation, Morocco 

[Ludwigia]

A hash plate from the Early Silurian Whirlpool Formation at the Forks of the Credit River in Caledon Ontario found in 2004. It measures 17x12cm. and includes among other things the brachiopods Platystrophia amoena, Glyptorthis sp. and Leptaena sp. and the bryozoa Eurydictya sp.

 

[Kane]

A trio of Eldredgeops rana rollers from the Arkona mudshale, middle Devonian, Arkona area, Ontario.