Garnett,ks

[st41lion]

Hello, I am kinda new to recognizing and figuring out what layers of rock or shale to look in for certain types of fossils. I recently did a ton of research and found the fossil dig location in garnett Kansas. There are supposed to be scorpion,amphibian,fish and insect fossils in abundance at this location. We found many different types of shale and limestone layers here. We eassily located Crinoids,clams and tons of vegetation that were fossils. We were unable to locate any of the other fossils I mentioned bove. Can anyone help me with what type of rock or shale we should concentrate on for the fish and insect fossils. Could you please describe the layer and what it might look like ie... Color, thickness of layer,shale or limestone,etc. any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks BTW I have a 3 year old boy and 7 year old daughter who go with me on these trips and love the hunt as much as do. Thanks, John

[Kehbe]

I too am new to figuring out what strata I am in and which ones to expect which fossils in! I didn't realize you could find insect fossils in Kansas. I've never been to Garnett. Good luck!

[Missourian]

This publication:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/169/Moore/index.html

has some details.

[grokfish]

Welcome to the site! I don't know which layer from which...but if you keep trying, you're bound to find something!

Check out this site:

http://www.windsofka...il_insects.html

Also,if you are up for a road trip, head west to the kansas chalks...castle rock, 15 miles south of quinter, is a pretty cool place to hunt and is open to the public. I took my two boys there and had a blast.

If you are interested, check out this site:

http://oceansofkansas.com/

if you have pics of your dig, others might be able to help with strata ID...

Edited December 21, 2011 by grokfish

[st41lion]

What kind of fossils did you find near Quinter? I will have to get pics on the next outing. May be snow covered soon. Thanks for everyones help and the links, I will check them out.

[Missourian]

Ah Quinter....

I've found shark teeth, many fish bones of all kinds (including a tail), and a million inoceramid clams.

A friend of mine once found an excellent Mosasaur skull.

[st41lion]

From what I am understanding the fish,insects and amphibians might be located in the same layer as the conifer leaves. Does this make sense to anyone? We went through a ton of shale and didnt see anything other than vegetation. According to the articles these fossils were plentiful at this site. Hmmmm........... more head scratching

[st41lion]

Is the place you are talking about a park or something?

[st41lion]

The Garnettius assemblage is comparable to the famous Burgess fauna from the Middle Cambrian of British Columbia in furnishing a glimpse of associated Paleozoic organisms unmatched by any other like community. Yet our knowledge of it obviously depends on the fortunate circumstances of exposure of a part of the deposits and the "accident" of discovery by N. D. Newell in the course of field work for the Kansas Geological Survey in 1931. If the strata and their contained fossils had been concealed by cover or if the outcrops had been unnoticed and unexplored, the Garnettius assemblage now would be as much unknown as scores of possible similar occurrences in older, age-equivalent, and younger Pennsylvanian and Permian deposits of the Kansas region.

Fossils of the South Bend Limestone Member of the Stanton at the locality northwest of Garnett are not included in the Garnettius assemblage, although they belong to the same cyclothem as that which here begins with the shaly strata (Rock Lake) containing the Garnettius community. The South Bend fauna is typically marine; it includes the fusulinid Triticites in addition to brachiopods, bryozoans, bivalves, gastropods, corals, and crinoid and echinoid remains.

Among marine invertebrates of the Garnettius assemblage are: (1) corals (?Lophophyllidium), (2) columnals of crinoids, (3) brachiopods (Lingula, Composita), (4) bryozoans (Fenestrellina, Polypora, Rhombopora), and (5) bivalves (Myalina, Yoldia, Sedgwickia) . Evidence found in ecosystems of other cyclothems suggests that all of these invertebrates except the corals are euryhaline forms, tolerant of considerable variation in salinity of waters around them, and they are interpreted to have been at home in a near-shore environment. They could have inhabited a shallow bay or lagoon having more or less restricted connection with an adjacent open shallow sea. Lingula (Suppl. Fig. 1, 8) is a burrowing inarticulate brachiopod which can survive in moderately brackish or even fresh water for brief periods of time by retreating to the deepest part of its burrow and tightly closing its shell. The genus may occur in the dark muds of tidal flats, whereas no brachiopods, including Lingula, are adapted for life in distinctly low-salinity environments.

Remains of land plants, which are a relatively abundant constituent of the Garnettius assemblage, surely were transported to the places where they became buried, as demonstrated by their association with marine organisms. A majority of the fossils are exceptionally well preserved, however. Genera (some illustrated in Suppl. Fig. 1) which have been identified are as follows, number of recognized species being indicated by accompanying numerals: Alethopteris (2), Annularia (1), Callipteridium (1), Cordaites (2), Desmopteris (2), Dichophyllum (2), ?Dicranophyllum (2), ?Lecrosia (1), ?Lepidophyllum (1), Neuropteris (2), Odontoperis (2), Palaeophycus (2), Pecopteris (1), Pteridospermostrobus (1), Samaropsis (4), Sphenopteris (3), Taeniopteris (4), ?Ulmania (1), Voltzia (1), and Walchia (4). Although hydrophytic and mesophytic types of ferns, pteridosperms, horsetails, lycopods, and sphenophylls are found in this flora, it is dominated by gymnosperms, especially the coniferlike Walchia, which denote a dry environment classifiable as xerophytic. Well-preserved specimens of coniferophyte wood from the Garnett area also have been described (Baxter and Hartman, 1954). This character and the presence of such plants as Taeniopteris, Dichophyllum, and Dicranophyllum so much resemble Permian floral assemblages that David White, a widely experienced paleobotanist of the U. S. Geological Survey, failed to see how the deposits near Garnett could be older than Permian (Moore, Elias, and Newell, 1936, p. 2, 12). In fact, they belong approximately 1,100 feet below the Pennsylvanian-Permian boundary as drawn in Kansas.

The terrestrial arthropods of the Garnettius assemblage include one genus of chelicerates, the scorpion Garnettius (Petrunkevitch, 1953, p. 34), and four genera of insects--the cockroaches Phyloblatta and Mylacris, and megasecopterans named Euchoroptera and Parabrodia (Carpenter, 1934, 1940). The megasecopterans are medium-sized to large insects with four subequal outspread wings, small head, and relatively slender, long abdomen. The cockroaches were chiefly cursorial on land but all of the Garnett insects could fly; they may have been air-borne to places where they dropped into waters of the Garnettius biotope or, more likely, their remains were transported by sluggish streams to the shallow bay or lagoon in bottom sediment of which they became buried.

Special interest relates to finds of vertebrates in the Garnettius-bearing deposits. These include coelacanth fishes (Hibbard, 1934), an amphibian named Hesperoherpeton garnettense (Peabody, 1958) which represents a new order named Plesiopoda (Eaton and Stewart, 1960) and four kinds of reptiles, the most important of which, represented by nearly complete skeletons and parts of skeletons, is a long-toed lizardlike form called Petrolacosaurus kansensis (Fig. 8), approximately 24 inches in length at maturity (Lane, 1945; Peabody, 1952). The other reptiles are all pelycosaurs, characterized by elongation of their vertebral neural spines to make a tall fin running along the middle of the back; one has been described as Edaphosarus ecordi (Peabody, 1957) and the others are an ophiacodont allied to Clepsydrops and a primitive sphenacodont. The fishes and amphibian probably lived in a stream or streams that emptied into the Garnett lagoonlike water body but the reptiles were animals of dry land. Peabody's (1952, p. 38) interpretation of the environment is worthy of quotation; with some omissions this is as follows.

Terrestrial and fluviatile organisms were rafted by a slow-running river into a marginal embayment or lagoon protected by a barrier sand bar. Calcareous mud, mainly transported by the river, was deposited in thin, possibly cyclic layers on the eroded surface of a marine limestone. The lagoon was deep enough so that waves did not disturb the bottom and the barrier bar was complete enough to exclude strong marine currents. Under these conditions, thin-bedded mud devoid of ripple marks or scour marks accumulated and formed what is now approximately 10 feet of fossiliferous shale. Deposition of mud served to impoverish the marine invertebrate fauna and exclude scavenging forms, while simultaneously preserving the remains of indigenous marine invertebrates and rafted terrestrial organisms. Rafted material became waterlogged, probably during transport, and some maceration occurred, for quantities of detached needles of conifers literally blacken some of the bedding planes. Corpses of reptiles came to rest on the mud bottom and became partly embedded. Before complete burial, differential decay weakened exposed parts. For example, the immature delicate skull rested thus dorsal side up. Most of the roof of the delicate skull then became detached and drifted away probably with the strengthened current which deposited the next layer of mud. Parts of the roof remained, because they were locked in place by the deeply embedded lower jaws and palate. . . . It is reasonable to assume that the plants, arthropods and reptiles may have been transported from one and the same terrestrial environment and at the same time by relatively quiescent but perhaps flooding waters of a Pennsylvanian river. . . . The river flowed through a relatively dry landscape dominated by conifers. Completeness of the reptilian skeletons and isolated limbs, the presence of delicate winged insects, and of fruits of conifer and pteridosperm suggest a common place of origin and one that was not far away. . . . Association of

Petrolacosaurus

with conifers raises the possibility of arboreal habits; elongate digits and lightened structure of the bones are suggestive of climbing ability. . . .

Petrolacosaurus

was an agile terrestrial reptile.

[st41lion]

This is a great article about the site. I just need to narrow down which layer to concentrate on.

[Missourian]

For such vertebrates and arthropods in the Pennsylvanian, "plentiful" means scarcely present.

[grokfish]

For such vertebrates and arthropods in the Pennsylvanian, "plentiful" means scarcely present.

No kidding! I felt blessed the two times we went to the chalks and came out with as much as we did...and Pennsylvanian is a whole lot harder to find anything compared to the Cretaceous, specially in our neck of the woods.

St41lion - check my gallery to see some of the stuff I pulled out of the chalks.

[grokfish]

This is a great article about the site. I just need to narrow down which layer to concentrate on.

Not sure if this would be helpful, but Have you checked out any of the geologic maps online? You can get a sense of exposed bedrock and where to hunt a little better using the maps. If you have access to ArcGIS, you can download pretty accurate geologic maps and overlay an aerial to locate places to hunt. If not, you can view some low res maps that will still be very helpful.

[Missourian]

The stratigraphic unit is the Rock Lake Shale of the Stanton Formation, but the Garnett beds are extremely unusual. The Rock Lake is typically a sandy shale with trace fossils only.

The vertebrate-&-arthropod-bearing deposit is probably any of the shale with leaves. Apparently, the dead animals and plants were rafted out to a common area and covered with successive layers of mud.

[Bullsnake]

Can't help with any info, but welcome to the forum from down the highway in Edwardsville!

[st41lion]

Grokfish, I will absolutely check out your pics and will be very interested in finding some good chalk bed sites that arent too far away. I bring my children with me so more than 2.5 hours in the car gets a little tough for them. I hear there are some near Topeka. I did print a geo survey map to find the site in Garnett. It was a huge dig area for the University of Kansas in the 30's through the 50's from what I understand. Following the survey map ad counting gravel roads led us to within 500 yards of the site. Then I hadto simply ask a local amish family and they pointed me right to it. It was siply a hole in the middle of field that you can't see from the road. I know I am on the exact spot where they found all of these coolthings mentioned in the article and there is still plenty of rock to go through. Its just that there are so many types of rock and shale at this location I want to narrow my searching to which layer may contain the fish and other cool specimens. Bullsnake I am glad to hear from someone close by thanks for the welcome. Thanks for everyones help

[st41lion]

I checked your gallery and according to the site you have no photos?

[st41lion]

[st41lion]

This is a copy of the geological survey map of the area. The site is located in the upper right corner as marked by the funny symbol. This still doesnt help me understand what layer to look in. Can anyone explain? As far as I can tell the whole site is located in the orange only. Here is the map legend.

[st41lion]

It tells me what type of rock is located there and thats it.

[st41lion]

Could I expect to find the same stuff in the creek just below or not. This site is in the center of an open field.

[Xiphactinus]

st41lion -

From what I recall, the Garnett vertebrates were primarily found in stramatolites that were in the formation. There is a display at KU in Dyche Hall about the find of Petralacosaurus. Mostly what they had on display were random bones found here and there. I hadn't read the article you posted. That looks a lot better than anything I remember seeing from there.

[st41lion]

Thats very interesting, I will have to google stramatolites to find out what that is. Thanks for the info

[st41lion]

• Here is another great article on the Garnett site
  
• The coelacanth fishes from the Rock Lake shale are part of the varied fauna collected from Garnett. Peabody (1952:38) listed many elements of the fauna and flora, and concluded that the deposits are of lagoonal origin. In addition to numerous invertebrates (including microfossils) and arthropods, a number of vertebrates other than coelacanths have been found. These include at least one kind of shark, Hesperoherpeton garnettense Peabody, one or more kinds of undescribed labyrinthodonts and the reptiles Petrolacosaurus kansensis Lane, Edaphosaurus ecordiPeabody, and Clepsydrops (undescribed species). This is indeed a rich vertebrate and the earliest known reptilian fauna. Much of the rock contains plant remains. The flora that has been identified is adapted to growing in a well-drained soil; although it contains some elements considered characteristic of the Permian, it is of Pennsylvanian age (Moore et al., 1936). Peabody (1952:38-39) discusses the features of these lagoonal sediments. Much of the fauna and flora suggests continental origin, but the many marine invertebrates at some horizons indicate that at least some of the sediments were of marine origin.
  Little can be said about the actual environment of the living fishes of the genus Synaptotylus. Remains of these fishes occur in layerscontaining marine invertebrates, as well as in those containing plant remains and vertebrate skeletal parts, and in those nearly completely composed of dark carbonaceous material. Most of the remains are fragmentary and consist of isolated bones, isolated scales, and dissociated skulls; only one specimen and half of another are nearly complete. Many published statements on Rhabdoderma, a related genus, indicate both marine and fresh-water environments. Wehrli (1931:115) regarded Rhabdoderma elegans (Newberry) as a euryhaline species, and cited its occurrence with both marine and fresh-water fossils. Aldinger (1931:199) also found this to be the case with other species, and Fiege (1951:17) quotes others as giving the same information. Keller (1934:913) thought that few Carboniferous fishes were exclusively marine, and stated that the majority of them became adapted to fresh water during the late Carboniferous. Later, Schaeffer (1953:175) stated that all Carboniferous and Permian coelacanths were fresh-water fishes, and that many were from swamp deposits. If Keller is correct, then members of the genus Synaptotylus may have inhabited the lagoon, the adjacent sea, or the streams draining into the lagoon. Perhaps these fishes swam upstream, as modern salmon and tarpon do, although there is no direct evidence for this. Possibly they lived in the lagoon at times of scant rainfall and little runoff, when the salinity of lagoon water approached normal marine values or the fishes may have lived in the streams, and after death were washed into the lagoon. As numerous remains of land plants and animals were washed in, perhaps this best accounts for the presence of the fish in nearly all layers of the deposits, not only the marine strata.
  SUMMARY
  A new genus of Pennsylvanian coelacanths, Synaptotylus, is described and a previously named species, Coelacanthus newelli Hibbard, 1933 (C. arcuatus Hibbard, 1933, is a junior synonym), is referred to this genus. All specimens of Synaptotylus newelli (Hibbard) were collected from the Rock Lake shale member of the Stanton formation, Lansing group, Missouri series, six miles northwest of Garnett, Anderson County, Kansas. Synaptotylus is distinguished from all other coelacanths by a basisphenoid having large, knoblike antotic processes each connected by a low ridge to a small basipterygoid process. Synaptotylus is most closely related to Rhabdoderma, but is intermediate betweenRhabdoderma and Coelacanthus in shape of the fin girdles and basal plates. Two new subfamilies, Diplocercinae and Rhabdodermatinae, of the family Diplocercidae, are proposed. Synaptotylus and Rhabdoderma are included in the subfamily Rhabdodermatinae, because both exhibit reduced ossification in the endocranium and retain basipterygoid processes.
  Loss of the basipterygoid processes in post-Carboniferous coelacanths may reflect the development of a more efficient feeding mechanism, by allowing the palatoquadrate complex and mandible to swing farther laterally and expand the oral cavity.
  Synaptotylus newelli (Hibbard) may have occupied either the sea or fresh water; these fishes occur in lagoonal deposits with reptiles and amphibians, arthropods, marine invertebrates and remains of land plants.
  Because scale patterns on Synaptotylus and Rhabdoderma are so nearly similar and vary with size of the scale and its location on the fish, it is recommended that isolated scales not be assigned to a species, and to a genus only with great caution
  

Edited December 22, 2011 by st41lion

[st41lion]

Ok, so the stanton and red rock shale formations hold all of the cool stuff. Now I just gotta figure out which layers are those.