New Members GabeMan Posted 18 hours ago New Members Share Posted 18 hours ago I found these two specimens in the Kansas City Group near the Fontana Shale. The first one is quite small, with a diameter of 9mm and a thickness of 2mm. The second one is larger at 12mm in diameter and 5mm in thickness. they also both have a ringed concave surface, as seen in the pictures, as well as a smooth, rounded outer shell. The first two and the last two pictures are of the smaller specimen the more close-up middle two pictures are of the larger one. The final picture is a side view of the larger one. Can someone please identify what these two fossils are for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted 18 hours ago Share Posted 18 hours ago Looks like Orbiculoidea. I have no idea on image 4. Maybe a brachiopod, or gastropod, or pelecypod. Not complete enough to say for sure, in my opinion. 1 3 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas.Dodson Posted 16 hours ago Share Posted 16 hours ago I agree that the first one looks like Orbiculoidea. I'd lean bivalve for image #4, that crosshatching pattern of growth lines crossing radiating striae is something I'd expect to see in bivalves, not brachiopods or gastropods. I can't be more specific though. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago (edited) Orbiculoidea are common in the Pennsylvanian rocks in the US. The shells are typically bluish grey or bluish black since they are phosphatic. I see remnants of the bluish grey shell circled in red in attached photo: Edited 15 hours ago by DPS Ammonite 2 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 1 hour ago, Thomas.Dodson said: I'd lean bivalve for image #4, that crosshatching pattern of growth lines crossing radiating striae is something I'd expect to see in bivalves, not brachiopods or gastropods. I can't be more specific though. I would too, but then you have gastropods like Naticonema and Retispira leda. Here is an image of a Retispira showing a similar texture. I've also seen this type of texture on Naticonema gastropods, although I haven't an image to share. That said, I think bivalve is probably more likely. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted 14 hours ago Share Posted 14 hours ago (edited) Tim, the fossils are Pennsylvanian. The ones you suggested are older. Use the Dallas Paleo Society’s website to view many Pennsylvanian fossils. It sort of looks like a pecten like shell although shell scraps are hard to ID. Consider Euchondria. https://www.dallaspaleo.org/Jacksboro-Study-Group Edited 14 hours ago by DPS Ammonite My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted 13 hours ago Share Posted 13 hours ago 50 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said: Tim, the fossils are Pennsylvanian. The ones you suggested are older. Understood - and I already said I was leaning more towards bivalve. You miss my point - I'm just pointing out the fact that the textures that are thought to be only bivalve related may not just be bivalve related. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 IPFOTM -- MAY - 2024 _________________________________________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago 2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said: Understood - and I already said I was leaning more towards bivalve. You miss my point - I'm just pointing out the fact that the textures that are thought to be only bivalve related may not just be bivalve related. I agree. A scrap like that could be part of a gastropod. We need to see more. My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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