sonny72 Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 We just started hunting fossils a couple of months ago and found alot of interesting fossils ,most we were able to ID but have a few we're not sure about.Found these at a local creek in Ft Worth TX. Could someone ID them for me please,also have some other's to ID that I haven't found in my books or on line but I'll start with these.Found in area that according to my Tarrant geology map is Pleistocene- Quaternary terrace deposits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 ammonite pieces typical of that area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny72 Posted April 18, 2009 Author Share Posted April 18, 2009 That's kind of what I thought but they looked a little different than the ammonites we've been finding so I thought I'd get another opinion,thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny72 Posted April 18, 2009 Author Share Posted April 18, 2009 What about these?,same area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Crocodile scutes? "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 April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I am not seeing anything in the last pics, how big are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny72 Posted April 18, 2009 Author Share Posted April 18, 2009 The smaller one is about 1 inch square the larger one is about 2x3 inches . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 looks like turtle shell to me. like from a soft-shelled turtle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 looks like turtle shell to me. like from a soft-shelled turtle. I agree with tracer, but scutes will have a similar pattern. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanceH Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Turtle? hmmm, that's new to me. The ammonites are either Oxytropidoceras or that other one that looks similar... Manuiceras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny72 Posted April 18, 2009 Author Share Posted April 18, 2009 I actually met a lady today that teaches fossil classes at the FW museum,I showed her the croc or turtle shell pieces and she immediatley ID'd them as trace fossils from a shallow seashore and said the place I found them was upper cretaceous period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 ...trace fossils from a shallow seashore ... Not. "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...
Bill Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 From the pic's I agree with trace fossils. They look more like impressions than turtle carapace or croc' scutes, to me. Can you post some side on pic's? KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Here's a croc scute; soft-shelled turtle is very similar. I remember them being compared on the Forum before, but I haven't found that thread yet. "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...
tracer Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 i could go with the trace fossils concept also. i'm flexible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny72 Posted April 19, 2009 Author Share Posted April 19, 2009 Here's side pics as requested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 i've changed my mind. that guy who said it was probably turtle misled me. i've now decided it's ancient art. somebody was trying to make a background for a slide on a paleolithic powerpoint presentation and created that pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa dino Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 If they are trace fossils I will have to rethink all my turttle finds Croc is smiulare but some one like me ( beer drinking bone digger) can see the differince tou suet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kauffy Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 i would say trace fossil is much more likely, considerning they were found in assosiation with ammonites (not saying its impossible to find croc material in assosiation) but a shallow marine depositional environment seems much more likely to produce trace fossils like these, often the sediment which infills the 'burrows' is softer, thus, as they are weathered the softer sediment gets broken down faster, creating the 'dimpled' affect which is what makes them look like turtle or croc scutes... You texas people tell me, what are the chances you could go hunt your local cretaceous spot which produces large amounts of ammonites and find in association two croc scute fragments?? i dont think this happens often?? They look like trace fossils to me... "Turn the fear of the unknown into the excitment of possibility!"We dont stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 ...You texas people tell me, what are the chances you could go hunt your local cretaceous spot which produces large amounts of ammonites and find in association two croc scute fragments?? i dont think this happens often??They look like trace fossils to me... Having now seen the edge of the pieces, I have to agree with the trace fossils ID. (should've asked for edge pics like Bill) kaffy, some of the creeks that cut through the Pleistocene deposits down to Cretaceous bedrock will place fossils in an artificial "association". I've found mammoth bone and mosasaur vertebrae in the close proximity; each coming from different strata. So an "association" of ammonite and turtle or croc is not as unlikely as it may seem. I'm fairly certain you were just testing to see if we were paying attention. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa dino Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I TOTALY DISAGREEEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 i agree to disagree with grampa! um, wait, what are we agreeing with or disagreeing with this time. i've lost track. hey, in my lately new interest in the composition of fossils and how they got that way, i've really started looking at the actual material of things, not just shape and textures. throwing that dimension in seems to help a bit. for instance, the smaller piece didn't really look like turtle shell to me from the get go, but the larger piece did more. but all the turtle shell i've found has been "boney" in mineralization, either white, brown or black, but definitely not pure limestone in composition. and there's no "layering" of it like in sedimentary rock. when you look edge on at a piece and see different layers eroded or cracked off and the layers are flat, then it really seems sedimentary. and pure limestone is, i think, largely just compressed and lithified "fossils" of eensy, weensy ocean organisms' shells. is it coccoliths? anyway, i'm not saying bone and turtle shell can't be totally replaced by pure calcium carbonate, but i haven't found any where it was. i have, though, found bone more or less totally replaced by quartz, but it still looks like bone. but then again, i don't usually hunt in the cretaceous, which sounds funny if you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreekCrawler Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I can see why some would think turtle when looking at Sonny's pics.Here are a few turtle fragments from the Sulphur river .There definitely is a similar dimpling look to them.The side view gives it away as being bone though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone digger Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 from the first pics I would have said turtle but from the second set of pics I would go with trace fossil. There just isn't any bone structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOROPUS Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 looks like turtle shell to me. like from a soft-shelled turtle. I agree with you (Tryonix family soft shell turtle), but it remains a bit to a Cretaceous croc scute I have from Morocco... 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