Exploring the Potomac Group

[Andúril Flame of the West]

A short while ago I unintentionally stumbled across a poorly preserved carbonized plant fossil at one of my favorite fishing streams - a place that I had never imagined would hold fossils. I posted an image of the specimen in the Fossil ID section where several members of the forum kindly confirmed my suspicions that it was a plant fossil. Here is the link to the original post in Fossil ID:

 

 

@patelinho7 and I have been jointly looking into the Culpeper Basin  (a Triassic rift basin within the Newark Supergroup) and its potential fossil content, and it seemed to the both of us that this could potentially be Culpeper Basin material. There were some red sandstones present that seemed to have originated from the Manassas Sandstone  (a formation - or member? - within the Culpeper Basin) and the map that I inserted into the original post indicated that Bull Run Formation/Manassas Sandstone was exposed in the area where the specimen was found. However, further exploration of the site has led me to believe that the fossil originated not from the Culpeper Basin, but from Potomac Group (Early Cretaceous oxbow swamp deposits in Maryland and northern Virginia) sediments. From what I know, this could be very intriguing since the locality is in an area quite far from the traditional Potomac Group outcrop belt. However, I hope that this post and interpretations from more versed members of the forum will help establish whether these are indeed Potomac Group fossils. As a small forewarning, this will be a rather picture-heavy post. Aside from including a plethora of specimen images, I have also included images of rocks found at the stream locality in case they may help to interpret the site. Based on what I have gathered from the site thus far, my current working hypothesis is that I have found an area where a formation within the Potomac Group (hopefully someone more experienced with these fossils could shed light on whether they originate from the Patuxent Formation, Patapsco Formation, or Arundel Clay) overlies strata from the Culpeper Basin. However, this hypothesis is based solely on my observations and my limited stratigraphic knowledge and any revisions are very welcome. Before diving into the report itself, I want to thank everyone that has helped me thus far and that comments on this post. Your help and comments have greatly helped me on my quest and I would still be very clueless if it were not for this forum!

 

To begin, I have included images of a few loose clasts that I believe may originate from the Culpeper Basin (from the Manassas Sandstone, specifically). The first specimen that I would like to mention is a piece of red, fissile shaly mudstone. 

 

 

The fissile nature of this specimen interested me most since most rocks I have encountered have been massive, often without clear bedding planes visible. Due to the locality being in close to the Manassas Sandstone according to the map in Dr. Weems's article (see map in the original Fossil ID post) I automatically assumed that it was one of the red sandstones from that formation. However, I have next to no experience with Potomac Group sediments and cannot say whether this may belong to the Potomac Group. 

 

 

Above are images of two more stones that are pretty good representatives of the general rock type found at this locality. The bottom one is another fissile mudstone much like that shown in the first image. The top specimen is a relatively flat slab of stone that seems to represent some sort of bedding plane. Loose flat slabs that resemble bedding planes are relatively common at this locality. 

 

 

Now, for a very shocking find! In my explorations I came across a very rare specimen of a fossilized Shoppingia cartdumpites. Unfortunately this specimen was what might be called a leaverite as it was far too large to take home and was located in relatively deep water .

 

 

On a more serious note, I came across a specimen of very fissile red sandstone/siltstone. The thin layers of stone easily came apart, revealing very dark red stone within the specimen. The presence of this specimen seemed also to indicate that the Manassas Sandstone could be present at this particular locality. 

 

 

Now, for something a bit intriguing that could potentially represent a fossil. Unfortunately the lighting was not very good at this time of day, but there was an interesting inclusion in this piece of stone. 

 

 

Now, for a few more photographs before the fossils. They are a bit difficult to see due to the glare on the water, but these may be the source beds from which many of the flat bedding planes and perhaps where the fossils are coming from.

 

 

I plan to add to this trip report as I continue to explore since there were a number of intriguing features that I did not photograph on my last outing. Here are a few additional things that could be important to note:

 

1.) When some of the rocks shown in the above photographs were flipped over, they bore a very dark red coloration. This reminded me of the oxidation that is present on some ironstones found in the Arundel Clay.

 

2.) Farther downstream there was a thick clay layer on the bank. This clay layer, which was composed of a whitish grey clay, was positioned between a layer of strata that coated the stream bottom and Pleistocene/modern soils. 

 

Now that I have posted some intriguing geological features, here are some photographs of the fossils that I decided to collect. 

 

Specimen 1:

 

 

This is the original specimen that I posted in the Fossil ID section. Other members confirmed that it is a piece of poorly preserved wood. 

 

Specimen 2:

 

 

More poorly preserved plant material. It is very hard to tell from the first photograph, so I have outlined the approximate shape of the plant fossil in the second photograph. The third photograph shows some carbonized material on the edge of the specimen. 

 

Specimen 3:

 

 

An example of a stone containing a few carbonized plant elements. Stones with a few scattered plant elements are relatively common, though from my current explorations they seem to occur in rather localized areas. 

 

Specimen 4:

 

 

Another indeterminate carbonized plant fossil. It is a bit larger than most of the specimens that I have found and the shape is rather different from that of most of the plants. 

 

Specimen 5:

 

 

Three views of the fifth specimen: front (top image), bottom (middle image), side (last image). 

 

Specimen 6:

 

 

This specimen probably represents one of the best preserved plants that I have found. However, I am not sure whether the specimen in the top image is preserved well enough to be identifiable. On the other side of the specimen a compressed plant specimen is preserved. It is difficult to tell from the photographs, but the fossil cuts diagonally across the bottom of the specimen on the lower image. 

 

Specimen 7:

 

 

This plant hash plate is one of my favorite specimens of those that I recovered. Again, not sure if any members would be able to tell what these specimens may be. 

 

Specimen 8:

 

 

I am entirely unsure what this specimen may be. I do not know whether these are fossils, impressions, mineral deposits, or some sort of sedimentary impressions. At any rate, the colors and depressions made for an intriguing rock. 

 

Specimen 9:

 

 

A very large slab with some of the best preserved plant remains that I have recovered at this point. On one side of the slab (the first few photographs) an articulated plant seems to be preserved. This one is pretty intriguing... would any plant or Potomac Group experts have any ideas on what it may be? The other side of the slab (the last photograph) seems to contain what might be a poorly preserved plant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Andúril Flame of the West

[Andúril Flame of the West]

One of the most interesting - and undoubtedly the heaviest - specimen that I have recovered on my trip. Unfortunately, the plant impression is very weathered, but I am very eager to hear what others might offer as an identification.

 

Specimen 10:

 

 

Here are some views of the impression with a ruler for scale. It is very water worn, so if more photographs are needed to visualize the specimen I would be very happy to provide them. The last photograph shows the approximate outline of the plant impression. Below are a few additional photographs where I have wet the specimen. Hopefully these make the impression more readily visible.

 

 

 

I would greatly appreciate any comments regarding the rocks found at the locality, whether the specimens originated in the Potomac Group, and what some of the plant specimens may be. 

[EMP]

Very cool post. I haven't had much luck with the Triassic rocks, and it's cool to see material from the Virginia/Maryland area.

 

IMO this all looks like Newark Group material. There are beds of grayish and even black sandstones, shales, and other rocks exposed within the Newark. During the late Triassic the location would have been a low-lying area sitting at the bottom of a half-graben, and combined with seasonal droughts and floods you can get a variety of different rock types depending where and when the unit formed. The presence of conglomerate with limestone-looking cobbles in it confirms that for me, since during the Triassic most of the erosion source would have been from the present-day Blue Ridge and Shenandoah Valley areas, where limestones are common. I would look into the Newark Group fossils of the New Jersey and Connecticut areas since I know a lot of the fossiliferous zones up there actually occur in the gray/black rocks as opposed to red ones. 

 

Whether or not there could be Potomac Group exposures would depend on where this site is, but the Culpeper Basin is pretty far away from the Fall Line, and the plant material (looks like some fern/horse tail fragments for the most part, along with some woody plant fragments) is pretty much standard Newark Group flora. If it were Potomac Group I'd expect more cycads and a lot more wood. 

 

But great stuff! It looks like that creek has a lot of potential!

 

Here's a brief summary from UMD for reference:

 

Maryland's Dinosaur Worlds (umd.edu)

[cck]

What leads you to believe this might be Potomac group? You are way to the west in a Triassic basin… these fossils look to be Triassic plants in typical culpeper basin matrix

[patelinho7]

19 minutes ago, cck said:

What leads you to believe this might be Potomac group? You are way to the west in a Triassic basin… these fossils look to be Triassic plants in typical culpeper basin matrix

I believe it’s because we both noted the similarities to Potomac Group plant material but I do agree, it doesn’t seem possible for an exposure to be this far west. I don’t know enough about the Patapsco but after seeing more specimens this definitely isn’t Patuxent or Arundel. As for ironstone, Arundel Clay ironstone is very distinct and is chock-full of lignite and well preserved tree impressions. It would be very, very noticeable and lignite would be everywhere.

This is still a very cool trip report and I’m very glad to hear about it! I’m quite interested in the Culpeper Basin as many probably know by now, so this is great news for us. Such an intriguing collection of fossils! I guess this is commonplace for those used to Newark Supergroup fossils but this is new for me. 
 

As for the redstones, I’m not 100% sure yet but I don’t believe that is Manassas Sandstone. I think I found an outcropping of Manassas Sandstone in Herndon, VA, and it’s quite literally blocky red sandstone and a bit lighter in color (almost pinkish). After a bit of research, anything that has a smooth surface like shale or mudstone or is darker red/brown seems to be different layers of the already established-to-be-fossiliferous Bull Run formation. Don’t quote me on that, though. Still need to verify that!

 

[Andúril Flame of the West]

3 hours ago, EMP said:

 

IMO this all looks like Newark Group material. There are beds of grayish and even black sandstones, shales, and other rocks exposed within the Newark. During the late Triassic the location would have been a low-lying area sitting at the bottom of a half-graben, and combined with seasonal droughts and floods you can get a variety of different rock types depending where and when the unit formed. The presence of conglomerate with limestone-looking cobbles in it confirms that for me, since during the Triassic most of the erosion source would have been from the present-day Blue Ridge and Shenandoah Valley areas, where limestones are common. I would look into the Newark Group fossils of the New Jersey and Connecticut areas since I know a lot of the fossiliferous zones up there actually occur in the gray/black rocks as opposed to red ones. 

 

Thanks @EMP; I appreciate the information about the Triassic basins. I have read some literature on Culpeper Basin material, but my understanding has been limited due to my rather basic knowledge of geology and my lack of experience in the field. When you mention the congolomerate, are you referring to specimen 8? This goes to show that I know embarrassingly little about the field of geology itself, but I suppose that we all start somewhere. Your observation of limestone-looking cobbles is a very interesting observation and your explanation certainly fits very nicely. Furthermore, there are many loose clasts that I believe to be quartzite which would also be consistent with what you have said. Perhaps I'll have a chance to take some pictures of these cobbles next time I visit for confirmation. I also appreciate the article you linked. Very interesting and I am a bit surprised that I never happened to run across it in my research!

 

3 hours ago, EMP said:

 

Whether or not there could be Potomac Group exposures would depend on where this site is, but the Culpeper Basin is pretty far away from the Fall Line, and the plant material (looks like some fern/horse tail fragments for the most part, along with some woody plant fragments) is pretty much standard Newark Group flora. If it were Potomac Group I'd expect more cycads and a lot more wood. 

 

 

2 hours ago, cck said:

What leads you to believe this might be Potomac group? You are way to the west in a Triassic basin… these fossils look to be Triassic plants in typical culpeper basin matrix

 

2 hours ago, patelinho7 said:

I believe it’s because we both noted the similarities to Potomac Group plant material but I do agree, it doesn’t seem possible for an exposure to be this far west. I don’t know enough about the Patapsco but after seeing more specimens this definitely isn’t Patuxent or Arundel. As for ironstone, Arundel Clay ironstone is very distinct and is chock-full of lignite and well preserved tree impressions. It would be very, very noticeable and lignite would be everywhere.

 

 

Had I never posted this on TFF I would've remained convinced that I somehow found a rogue exposure of Potomac Group! I greatly appreciate the clarification and I am happy to know these are Culpeper Basin fossils due to the relatively few fossil-bearing localities known from Culpeper strata. To answer @cck's question, some assumptions and some research led me to the conclusion that these might be Potomac Group fossils. First off, it is important to note that I have spent a large amount of time researching and poring over literature and that I have spent comparably little time out in the field. As such, I had never directly observed and recognized the Bull Run Formation and I had also never hunted in the Potomac Group. @EMP was correct in saying that my locality is quite far from the Fall Line and the outcrop belt of Potomac Group sediments. Here is a map of the Patuxent Formation outcrop belt with the approximate location of the stream locality circled in red:

 

Map source:

Stanford, R., Weems, R. E., & Lockley, M. G. (2010). A New Dinosaur Ichnotaxon from the Lower Cretaceous Patuxent Formation of Maryland and Virginia. Ichnos, 11(3-4), pp. 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940490428797.

 

I had considered that the locality was far from known Potomac Group exposures, but a few things did stand out to me. The red-orange color of many of the rocks on which the specimens were found and the oxidized look of many of the stones present at the stream locality reminded me of the siderite concretions and ironstone known to be present in the Potomac Group. Additionally, the preservation of the plants reminded me of some carbonized plant remains that I have previously seen in posts on TFF about Patuxent Formation fossils. I also assumed that the fossils could have originated from the Potomac Group, as it seemed that fossiliferous Potomac Group outcrops are far more common than fossiliferous Culpeper Basin outcrops due to the number of posts on TFF about Potomac Group plant fossils. However, I do not know if this is truly the case or if the Potomac Group has simply been explored more thoroughly than the Culpeper Basin. As one last line of evidence that pointed me toward the Potomac Group, a very old posting here on the forum showed a plant fossil that was found in a stream in McLean, which is relatively close to the locality. The approximate location of McLean is shown in yellow on the map. Here is the link to that original post: 

In retrospect, I realize that McLean, although not far from the locality I have explored, is still quite a bit closer to the Potomac Group outcrop belt than I had previously thought. However, the oxidation present on the specimen does not look dissimilar from the oxidation that I noticed on some rocks at the stream locality. @Auspex suggested that the fossil could have originated from the Potomac Group, which at the time seemed to strengthen the idea that the fossils I recovered came from the Potomac Group and not the Culpeper Basin.

 

So I do not get the wrong message across, I do not doubt what you have told me. I fully agree that these fossils are most likely from the Culpeper Basin and I am quite glad to know that they are. I simply wanted to answer @cck's question as to why I thought they might've originated from the Potomac Group  .

 

2 hours ago, patelinho7 said:

This is still a very cool trip report and I’m very glad to hear about it! I’m quite interested in the Culpeper Basin as many probably know by now, so this is great news for us. Such an intriguing collection of fossils! I guess this is commonplace for those used to Newark Supergroup fossils but this is new for me. 
 

As for the redstones, I’m not 100% sure yet but I don’t believe that is Manassas Sandstone. I think I found an outcropping of Manassas Sandstone in Herndon, VA, and it’s quite literally blocky red sandstone and a bit lighter in color (almost pinkish). After a bit of research, anything that has a smooth surface like shale or mudstone or is darker red/brown seems to be different layers of the already established-to-be-fossiliferous Bull Run formation. Don’t quote me on that, though. Still need to verify that!

 

 

I fully agree with your statement about it being commonplace to those familiar with the fossils but new to you. I am in the same boat, having had no idea what to expect from the Culpeper Basin. What you've mentioned about the stratigraphy of the Culpeper Basin is quite intriguing and informative. If you found the sandstone in Herndon I agree that it must be the Manassas Sandstone since it most certainly falls in the region where the Manassas Sandstone exposes according to the map in the gastroliths paper. This also shows me that I have to take the time to read up some more and to become more familiar with the geology to differentiate the different formations!

 

Of the specimens pictured in the report, I was most intrigued by Specimen 10 due to its size and some of the smaller details that I could make out. I am far from familiar with plants, living or extinct, but the impression reminded me of a very large horsetail stem. @Fossildude19, do you think that Specimen 10 could be a species of Equisetum? Also, @Fossildude19, would I be able to change the title of my post to Exploring the Culpeper Basin?

Edited June 12, 2023 by Andúril Flame of the West

[EMP]

14 hours ago, Andúril Flame of the West said:

 

Thanks @EMP; I appreciate the information about the Triassic basins. I have read some literature on Culpeper Basin material, but my understanding has been limited due to my rather basic knowledge of geology and my lack of experience in the field. When you mention the congolomerate, are you referring to specimen 8? This goes to show that I know embarrassingly little about the field of geology itself, but I suppose that we all start somewhere. Your observation of limestone-looking cobbles is a very interesting observation and your explanation certainly fits very nicely. Furthermore, there are many loose clasts that I believe to be quartzite which would also be consistent with what you have said. Perhaps I'll have a chance to take some pictures of these cobbles next time I visit for confirmation. I also appreciate the article you linked. Very interesting and I am a bit surprised that I never happened to run across it in my research!

 

 

 

 

Had I never posted this on TFF I would've remained convinced that I somehow found a rogue exposure of Potomac Group! I greatly appreciate the clarification and I am happy to know these are Culpeper Basin fossils due to the relatively few fossil-bearing localities known from Culpeper strata. To answer @cck's question, some assumptions and some research led me to the conclusion that these might be Potomac Group fossils. First off, it is important to note that I have spent a large amount of time researching and poring over literature and that I have spent comparably little time out in the field. As such, I had never directly observed and recognized the Bull Run Formation and I had also never hunted in the Potomac Group. @EMP was correct in saying that my locality is quite far from the Fall Line and the outcrop belt of Potomac Group sediments. Here is a map of the Patuxent Formation outcrop belt with the approximate location of the stream locality circled in red:

 

Map source:

Stanford, R., Weems, R. E., & Lockley, M. G. (2010). A New Dinosaur Ichnotaxon from the Lower Cretaceous Patuxent Formation of Maryland and Virginia. Ichnos, 11(3-4), pp. 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940490428797.

 

I had considered that the locality was far from known Potomac Group exposures, but a few things did stand out to me. The red-orange color of many of the rocks on which the specimens were found and the oxidized look of many of the stones present at the stream locality reminded me of the siderite concretions and ironstone known to be present in the Potomac Group. Additionally, the preservation of the plants reminded me of some carbonized plant remains that I have previously seen in posts on TFF about Patuxent Formation fossils. I also assumed that the fossils could have originated from the Potomac Group, as it seemed that fossiliferous Potomac Group outcrops are far more common than fossiliferous Culpeper Basin outcrops due to the number of posts on TFF about Potomac Group plant fossils. However, I do not know if this is truly the case or if the Potomac Group has simply been explored more thoroughly than the Culpeper Basin. As one last line of evidence that pointed me toward the Potomac Group, a very old posting here on the forum showed a plant fossil that was found in a stream in McLean, which is relatively close to the locality. The approximate location of McLean is shown in yellow on the map. Here is the link to that original post: 

In retrospect, I realize that McLean, although not far from the locality I have explored, is still quite a bit closer to the Potomac Group outcrop belt than I had previously thought. However, the oxidation present on the specimen does not look dissimilar from the oxidation that I noticed on some rocks at the stream locality. @Auspex suggested that the fossil could have originated from the Potomac Group, which at the time seemed to strengthen the idea that the fossils I recovered came from the Potomac Group and not the Culpeper Basin.

 

So I do not get the wrong message across, I do not doubt what you have told me. I fully agree that these fossils are most likely from the Culpeper Basin and I am quite glad to know that they are. I simply wanted to answer @cck's question as to why I thought they might've originated from the Potomac Group  .

 

 

I fully agree with your statement about it being commonplace to those familiar with the fossils but new to you. I am in the same boat, having had no idea what to expect from the Culpeper Basin. What you've mentioned about the stratigraphy of the Culpeper Basin is quite intriguing and informative. If you found the sandstone in Herndon I agree that it must be the Manassas Sandstone since it most certainly falls in the region where the Manassas Sandstone exposes according to the map in the gastroliths paper. This also shows me that I have to take the time to read up some more and to become more familiar with the geology to differentiate the different formations!

 

Of the specimens pictured in the report, I was most intrigued by Specimen 10 due to its size and some of the smaller details that I could make out. I am far from familiar with plants, living or extinct, but the impression reminded me of a very large horsetail stem. @Fossildude19, do you think that Specimen 10 could be a species of Equisetum? Also, @Fossildude19, would I be able to change the title of my post to Exploring the Culpeper Basin?

 

We all start somewhere is very true. My first time fossil collecting I ended up passing by the site I wanted to visit and came up on a different exposure. I found a bunch of things there, mostly brachiopods and the like, and when I got back home and looked on Google Maps I was surprised to find that I went to the wrong place but still found stuff. After that I figured that there was a lot more to geology and fossil collecting then I thought at first, and that got me down the route of reading about it in my free time. I can shoot a PM about some book recommendations if you'd like. 

[patelinho7]

8 hours ago, EMP said:

 

We all start somewhere is very true. My first time fossil collecting I ended up passing by the site I wanted to visit and came up on a different exposure. I found a bunch of things there, mostly brachiopods and the like, and when I got back home and looked on Google Maps I was surprised to find that I went to the wrong place but still found stuff. 

 
Out of curiosity, what were you expecting to find? Was it the same formation, different exposure, or a totally different ball game?

[EMP]

2 hours ago, patelinho7 said:

 
Out of curiosity, what were you expecting to find? Was it the same formation, different exposure, or a totally different ball game?

 

I was looking for an exposure of sandstone that was sort of known locally as a source of brachiopod fossils. I didn't know at the time what the sandstone looked like, so I accidentally drove past the actual site and kept going down the road. Eventually I came to another exposure (I would later find out it was shale) and assumed that was the site I was looking for. I found a bunch of brachiopods, gastropods, and other fossils there. As I was making my way back, I drove past the first exposure and decided to stop there and check it out just to make sure. Sure enough, I was finding shells that looked exactly like the ones I had seen pictured, so I knew that was the site I was supposed to be looking at. At the time I didn't realize you could find fossils in places people hadn't written about, so I was confused why I was finding shells (but different looking shells) in different rocks, and that led me down the road I'm on today. 

 

I also thought that rocks got progressively older the further you got from the ocean, but not too old, since I had a hard time believing I'd find a rock as old as 400 or 500 million years old. In my defense I was in elementary school at the time XD

[Andúril Flame of the West]

11 hours ago, EMP said:

 

We all start somewhere is very true. My first time fossil collecting I ended up passing by the site I wanted to visit and came up on a different exposure. I found a bunch of things there, mostly brachiopods and the like, and when I got back home and looked on Google Maps I was surprised to find that I went to the wrong place but still found stuff. After that I figured that there was a lot more to geology and fossil collecting then I thought at first, and that got me down the route of reading about it in my free time. I can shoot a PM about some book recommendations if you'd like. 

 

I could certainly see myself in that position even today ... but I'm glad to hear that you came away with something despite having hunted an exposure you hadn't intended to. I am just curious, but was this Mahantango Formation? I would very much appreciate if you could send me some book recommendations! There is much that I hope to learn with regards to basic geology that should help me gain a full understanding of some of the more technical terminology I have been skimming over. In my free time I have been consuming literature in hopes of learning about fossils in the area, but I look forward to also dedicating some time to building more foundational geological knowledge. 

[Andúril Flame of the West]

As a small update to this post I have done some further reading and exploration which has proved to be quite revealing. Earlier in this post I believe that I mentioned that there were beds of rock present on the creek bottom (not those that I photographed in the original post). The rock proved quite easy to remove by hand, and the non-weathered freshly broken surfaces were very blocky and a light pinkish color. This is consistent with @patelinho7’s description of the Manassas sandstone member of the Passaic Formation.

 

We have also established that the fossils are most likely coming from the Balls Bluff Siltstone member, which directly overlies the Manassas Sandstone. So it appears that both the Manassas Sandstone and the Balls Bluff Siltstone are present at this particular locality. 
 

Not too interesting of an update, but understanding the rock layers present should help on future explorations. I’ll just have to focus on the rocks a bit higher up in the stratigraphic column and hope that they continue producing interesting finds.

[va paleo]

Cool I think Culpeper Basin has a lot of hope for sure

[patelinho7]

3 hours ago, va paleo said:

Cool I think Culpeper Basin has a lot of hope for sure

Not to be discouraging, but I spent much of 2023 searching to little success. However, that doesn’t mean nothing is out there. Search the red mudstones for tracks and other ichnofossils, and the grey siltstones for plant material and the rare chance of vertebrate material. And let us know what you find! 

[Andúril Flame of the West]

3 hours ago, patelinho7 said:

Not to be discouraging, but I spent much of 2023 searching to little success. However, that doesn’t mean nothing is out there. Search the red mudstones for tracks and other ichnofossils, and the grey siltstones for plant material and the rare chance of vertebrate material. And let us know what you find! 

 

I do believe that there is much to be learned from the fossils of the Culpeper Basin, but the inconsistent nature of fossiliferous outcroppings can be rather discouraging. The locality at which I found these fossils has been my only Newark success. Even the few documented localities that could be found proved elusive and the covoluted stratigraphy makes it difficult to extrapolate beyond recorded sections. That being said, I am hoping that it is simply a matter of persistence! The story shared by @va paleo is encouraging and gives me hope that we can have some success in the Triassic of Virginia. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Andúril Flame of the West

[va paleo]

https://www.vof.org/2022/07/12/spotlight-on-paleontology-with-ben-kligman/ that might help you