Can Anyone Help Me Id These Shells Please?

[CURT]

These were purchased several years ago without data. The only information I have is that the clam is said to be Eocene . If anyone can ID them at least to the Genus level and give me locality information I would be greatly appreciative. Thank you.

Pictures 4 and 10 are a single specoimen.

Pictures 5-9 are a single specimen

[jkfoam]

The clam looks like Genus Pitar to me . As to location it looks like the Eocene of the Gulf Coast, either Alabama or Mississippi and most probably Mississippi. As to the other fossils, sorry, I can't help you.

JKFoam

[Desmond]

Those look like Ordovician cephlopods but my guidebooks are currently in the truck and it's almost time for work. I'll look them up tommorow. Best guess w/o books would be Odo. in Morrocco or Ohio / Penn area in US. Again that's VERY tentative I'll look in the AM before I leave for this weekends hunt in the morning.

Des

[tomclark]

First one is Family Veneridae. Looks like Mercenaria campechiensis which has a finely crenulated inner lip. But could be Ventricolaria rugatina....... Pics in Ident guide and preservation/pic of fossil can't see well enough. but the size is more like Mercenaria c. aka the southern quahog clam Pliocene to Recent.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I don't think they are Ordovician. Most Ord cephalopods are orthoconic, and without complex sutures.

[MOROPUS]

The ammonites look like some Triassic forms (Otoceras?-Ceratites?-Flexoptychites? family members?) due to their suture lines.But not 100% sure!

I agree with Mercenaria.

[Mike Murphy]

Curt:

I agree with MOROPHUS on the Triassic age of the ammonites. They all have ceratitic sutures, but none have goniatitic or prolecanitic suture patterns as would be expected with Mississippian, Pennsylvanian or Permian ammonites. I have very limited experience with Triassic ammonites, however, and would not attempt generic identification.

Regards,

Mike

[geofossil]

Lots of Upper Paleozoic cephalopods have ceratite sutures....especially those in the Permian. They are the ones best used as index fossils.

the specimen? Anywhere from Lower Carboniferous through early to early mid Triassic. 'In general', however (with exceptions) Carboniferous cephalopods tend to be on the smaller side up to 4 cm or so. In many Late Permian and into Triassic deposits, there are more (but not most) larger cephalopods like that in the photo. Also, if the shell is relatively smooth, it's also indicative of Late Permian through early and middle Triassic. Ribbed cephalopods are more common in later times although there are, again, lots of exceptions.

Re Mesozoic deposits: Due to a lot of variables, info on Triassic fossils is not as common as those of the the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Much of the Triassic exposures are non-marine aeolian deposits (like those of the American southwest) and not conducive to abundant fossil preservation. Also, a lot of paleontolgy study is from Europe and Jurassic and Cretaceous studies dominated the early research. Then when research picked up in North America, fossiliferous Triassic exposures were not common in he eastern half of the continent. in western North American there are fossiliferous deposits but many are largely in hard to access locations in British Columbia.

I join with Mike in his comment and confess to a bit of a gap in Triassic knowldege.