mommabetts Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Here are some of the things that I have found in the red river in fannin county. Most I can ID but there are some that I am not sure about. I know my pics are that good but with the camera that I have it is the best that it gets. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the one in the first photo at the center top. the cluster of round balls, does anyone know what that is? Also in same picture one on left and one on right the long skinny thing, it has shell still on it running the full length of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 "Mr. Lumpy" might be a calcerious nodule? Could the long thingy be a baculite? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 No it is not a baculite, they have long grooves running the full length like a shell that is rolled up in a tube, they remind me of echoniod spines but they are not. I have found some as small as toothpick and some as big around as a pencil, they are of shell material, I just don't know what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 No it is not a baculite, they have long grooves running the full length like a shell that is rolled up in a tube, they remind me of echoniod spines but they are not. I have found some as small as toothpick and some as big around as a pencil, they are of shell material, I just don't know what they are. Tusk shell (scaphopod)? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Post another picture or two and don't shrink it this time, so those of us with high speed connections can see more detail. Maybe taken in sunlight (if you have any of that today - none here at the moment). Sometimes you can step back and zoom in a little to get a good pic if you don't have close up (macro) capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 At a quick glance your stuff looks Washita in age to me. Neithea scallops, possibly Rastellum razor clams, etc. Hard for me to pin down formation without seeing ammonites and echinoids, possibly Ft. Worth or Denton formation? Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 I believe probably Washita formation. Here are a few more pics, I also added a pic of a tooth that was found at same location, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Look familiar? These are Dentalium (tusk shells). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screweduptexan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Hey mommabetts...that is some neat stuff you got there! Nice finds....I hope to be out that way soon...I hope that is. As you know, I am crappie on the IDs. I can't come up with anything clever enough for my signature...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 looks like auspex may have pegged the mini-tusks, although i was going to guess they were Ruffles Mini Pachys snacks, because they looked like little ribbed elephant tusks. But that's neither here nor there. the shark teeth look like fragments of scapanorhynchus texanus, which was probably a very weird critter. look up pictures of "goblin sharks" and you'll probably want to find one and eat it and write about the grossness on another thread here. a lot of the other stuff is the typical molds of gastropods, etc. the neithea stuff is obvious, and the denture clams (rastellum) but the pictures just aren't sharp enough on the other. if you're using a digital camera with auto focus, the likelihood is that the low light level where you took the picture caused the autofocus mechanism to hunt for the focus and finally just pick one out of exasperation. try shooting in bright light - the better to see your stuff with, my dear. i for one really want to know what the petrified cluster of grapes is - white or red. the kreidezeit rendered too many things hard to identify, darn its eyes. p.s. - i really feel like i could take all of the stress of modern existence better if i were close to the North Sulphur River. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Very nice bi-valves, looks like a good place to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer1 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 cool finds momma, the red river has some cool fossils in it, but that is one dangerous place quick sand is a biggy, it has claimed to of my favorite hats. but great finds though. :cool: also i have gravel for sale check the trade room or my posts. god hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Hey shark tooth guys Didn't Scapanorhynchus range through the Taylor, putting it some 30 million years younger than the Washita, which is the probable age of of the other stuff? I don't know all that much about shark teeth, so someone feel free to straighten me out...I'm open to correction... Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 an I think you are right, map show gober chalk in the Tayor shale formation. Items were found in the red river between fannin county TX and Bryan county in OK, Does that sound right to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 you're probably right dan. i wasn't being careful in my thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 dan - having now taken approximately four minutes to rethink my previous posting, i've reached the following conclusions - #1. i should stick to being funny #2. i shouldn't quit my day job, though #3. i should never throw out a specific binomial on a fragment #8. i shouldn't think of north texas east of dallas as an homogenous area, even when tired #5. i shouldn't make excuses about being tired. #6. i probably should get an award if indeed i was off by 30 million years. #7. i need to memorize some species that were around forever to throw out when i'm not sure. #4. i should inform everyone here that it is little known but well established that scapanorhynchus may have had that weird snout because it was a prolifically burrowing genus, well capable of burrowing through almost any depth of strata. additionally, it was known to be a prankster among it's contemporaries. sincerely, haifischverwechselner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted November 11, 2008 Author Share Posted November 11, 2008 dan - having now taken approximately four minutes to rethink my previous posting, i've reached the following conclusions -#1. i should stick to being funny #2. i shouldn't quit my day job, though #3. i should never throw out a specific binomial on a fragment #8. i shouldn't think of north texas east of dallas as an homogenous area, even when tired #5. i shouldn't make excuses about being tired. #6. i probably should get an award if indeed i was off by 30 million years. #7. i need to memorize some species that were around forever to throw out when i'm not sure. #4. i should inform everyone here that it is little known but well established that scapanorhynchus may have had that weird snout because it was a prolifically burrowing genus, well capable of burrowing through almost any depth of strata. additionally, it was known to be a prankster among it's contemporaries. sincerely, haifischverwechselner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 dan - having now taken approximately four minutes to rethink my previous posting, i've reached the following conclusions -... Tracer, your first post was 100% accurate; Goblin Sharks are UUUG-LEEE! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 OK Tracer, feel free to give me some string of consciousness humor lessons, as I'm a dull witted engineer after all, and I'll assemble us a cadre of experts to entertain our paleo queries, as I'm off the mark probably more often than you. Nice hunk o' buckshot you got there by the way, hahaha. Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screweduptexan Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I can't come up with anything clever enough for my signature...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Murphy Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Very nice collection from the Red River. This collection has some important zone fossils although it lacks echinoids and ammonites. I agree with Dan that the fossils are from the Washitan, but I think that they are from higher in the Washitan than Fort Worth or Denton Formation. I think that they are probably from the Main Street or mixed Main Street and Grayson(Lower Cenomanian). This is based on the fact that there is a Peilinia quadriplicata (Duck Creek to Main Street) in the lower part of the first picture; the presence of Ilymatogyra arietina (Main Street to Buda) at the 10:00 position in Photograph 1 and Photograph 3 and the 2:00 position in photograph 2; the presence of Rastellum carinatum (Fort Worth to Buda) at the 6:00 to 7:00 position in photograph 3; and the presence of what is likely a Pachymya austensis (Weno to Buda) at the 3:00 position in photograph 3. Other identifiable specimens are several Neithea texanus (Duck Creek through Buda) in photographs 1 and 2, 2 specimens of Lopha subovata (Goodland to Grayson) in photograph 3, a specimen of Lima wacoensis (Glen Rose; Goodland to Buda) at the 5:00 position in photograph 1 and what appears to be Texigryphaea roemeri (Main Street to Buda) at the 11:00 position in photograph 3. The other fossils in photographs 1 through 3 were either steinkerns or were too blurry to "guesstimate". Possibly the elongated things in photograph 1 and definitely the 2 elongated specimens in photograph 4 are cidaroid spines. I cannot even hazard a guess as to the cluster of round balls at the 12:00 position in photograph 1. It is just not clear enough. The shark tooth needs to be looked at more closely and in a clearer photograph. The shark tooth does seem to have longitudinal striae along the blade, a characteristic of Scapanorhynchus; it may represent Scapanorhynchus rhaphiodon which Welton and Farrish indicate may be found in the Cenomanian as well as in the Eagle Ford (Turonian) and up into the Coniacian. It may represent a rework into the Washitan from the overlying upper Cretaceous sediments. Shark teeth are notorious for appearing where they should not be due to reworking from older to younger sediments and from younger to older sediments. I do not profess to being an expert in identifying fossil sharks. I'll leave that identification to the real shark experts! Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 i just love when Mike posts. Mike, i love when you post. i always feel like printing out your posts and putting them in a binder for reference. of course i never actually DO that, but i feel like it. i'm too disorganized, or maybe "reworked" would be the better phrase. i have a confession. just about the time i familiarized myself with some of the good old american strata names and how old they were, everybody started using those subdivision names and european names and messing me up. so like, if you say "upper cretaceous" or "eagle ford" or something, i have a chance, but once you start throwing around "cenomanian" or something, i mentally drop and roll into a fetal position and such my thumbs. yes, dear readers, science makes some of us insecure. (especially nuclear science){and yes, i put "such" in on purpose, so as not to be a potty mouth. i'm trying to such up to Anson, in hopes of someday getting promoted from fool to bouncer}. just about everything above was just ramblings of a brain that got up at something greenwich mean time or zulu time or something (see? it works with other stuff too). the real point of this post (if you're still reading, dan, and i know you are) is that Auspex confirmed that goblin sharks are ugly, like i said, and Mike certainly sounded like he confirmed that the salient fragments are from our old friend scapanorhychus. and since the specific speciesness is irreverent, i hereby retract all of my lengthy mea culpas and crawfishing and kowtowing that i worked so hard to make look spontaneous, and repronounce myself the most erudite fool present! <insert one of those horn salutes here, with those long horns that a bunch of guys in tights would raise and blow in those medieval movies [or maybe they were shakespearian]{or shakeshalberdian}> whatever - live impreciseyl, i say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOROPUS Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 At a quick glance your stuff looks Washita in age to me. Neithea scallops, possibly Rastellum razor clams, etc. Hard for me to pin down formation without seeing ammonites and echinoids, possibly Ft. Worth or Denton formation? I agree with Neithea and Rastellum.This confirms Cretaceous age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted November 11, 2008 Author Share Posted November 11, 2008 I have no clue for sure as to what formation, Some of the fossils from this site look like they just came out of the ground, with no wear and some look like they have been washed very badly coming from god only knows where. Because of the rivers length some of the stuff could have traveled a long way. All of the ammonites that I have found are so worn that they aren't worth keeping, I have found some large heart shaped echiniods there, some really worn some in good shape. It is about 20 miles east of the Denison dam. On Texas side it is very hard white rock on the OK side it is sandy and you can see the different layers in the wall of the river. If you dig around the different layers you can dig out different things at each layer. If you look at the map in "The Audubon Society Field Guide To Fossils It is Almost in the middle of where the Upper Cretaceous, lower cretaceous and the Permian and carboniferous all come together,Another book has the gober chalk running up that far. It just depends on what book you look at. That would explain why there are a variety of different things in one spot. If that makes any sense. The long skinny things are probably dentalium because of the ribbing running the full length of it and because of how big around it is. The tooth I am not sure but I have found one just like it in the NSR. Now I am sure that I have alot of people scratching their head and thinking she has lost her mind or never had one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 #1. so did you pick this spot just because it's confusing? #4. "thinking she has lost her mind or never had one." so which is it? make up your...um, nevermind. P.S. <saluting all veterans> thanks ever so muchly to all veterans for your service! 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