Dave Bowen Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?ac...st&id=29922 Looks a little like this one. These things are all pretty similar, so I really don't know what the differences are. This one is about 2 inches long. This was part of my find at Benbrook this week. I cleaned it up last night. I'm posting it here because I can't reply in the for sale/trade forums yet. Dave Bowen Collin County, Texas. Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?ac...st&id=29922Looks a little like this one. These things are all pretty similar, so I really don't know what the differences are. This one is about 2 inches long. This was part of my find at Benbrook this week. I cleaned it up last night. I'm posting it here because I can't reply in the for sale/trade forums yet. It looks like it might be a Texigryphea mucronata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Gryphea.... we call them 'Devils Toenails'.... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 hey dave...nice oyster. jp bowen is looking for one of these. you should contact him if you wanna get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy1971 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think mommabetts nailed it.......looks like Texigryphea mucronata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 hey dave...nice oyster. jp bowen is looking for one of these. you should contact him if you wanna get rid of it. He is looking for Texigryphea Gibberosa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traviscounty Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 If anyone wants some of these, they seem to be what our creeks here in Austin are made of. I'll trade anyone 40 lbs. of these for 40 lbs. of something we don't have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreekCrawler Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I'll trade anyone 40 lbs. of these for 40 lbs. of something we don't have here. Ok I'll trade you 40lbs of black gumbo mud from north Texas for the shells.That's something you don't have there!!NO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 hang on there, travis - don't get ahead of yourself. i'm working on a deal with a guy who says he knows where there's a formation that's made completely out of fossilized cocktail sauce and crackers. if i can swing a deal i'll be heading up that way with it and ya'll can corner the global market on cretaceous oysters on the halfshell. (what's happenin' here, for those of ya'll that don't understand, is that i start and delete about 650 of these kinds of posts a day, and every once in a while one squeaks through my self-filters. so regardless of what ya'll are putting up with, i'm putting up with a bazillion times more.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Generally if you know the formation you can determine the species of Texigryphaea fairly easily. Only a few species overlap and from what I understand seldom occur together. I recently added nice T. navias to my collection from the Kiamichi. The Bivalve book sold by the Houston club has it all laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanceH Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I'm gonna say possibly Texigryphea marcoui since it's from the Benbrook area (Goodland/Kiamichi/DuckCreek fms.) which is much lower in the stratigraphy than T. mucronata (found in Grayson fm.). Charles Finsley's "A Field Guide to Fossils of Texas" says explicitely that T. marcoui is now considered same as T. mucronata. ========================== Edit: having looked at the T. navia at my site I don't think it's a T. navia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traviscounty Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 hang on there, travis - don't get ahead of yourself. i'm working on a deal with a guy who says he knows where there's a formation that's made completely out of fossilized cocktail sauce and crackers. if i can swing a deal i'll be heading up that way with it and ya'll can corner the global market on cretaceous oysters on the halfshell.(what's happenin' here, for those of ya'll that don't understand, is that i start and delete about 650 of these kinds of posts a day, and every once in a while one squeaks through my self-filters. so regardless of what ya'll are putting up with, i'm putting up with a bazillion times more.) Have your people call my people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamalama Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 If anyone wants some of these, they seem to be what our creeks here in Austin are made of. I'll trade anyone 40 lbs. of these for 40 lbs. of something we don't have here. How about 40 lbs of Philly Cheesteaks? -Dave __________________________________________________ Geologists on the whole are inconsistent drivers. When a roadcut presents itself, they tend to lurch and weave. To them, the roadcut is a portal, a fragment of a regional story, a proscenium arch that leads their imaginations into the earth and through the surrounding terrain. - John McPheeIf I'm going to drive safely, I can't do geology. - John McPheeCheck out my Blog for more fossils I've found: http://viewsofthemahantango.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 How about 40 lbs of Philly Cheesteaks? I'm in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'll raise you 80 pounds and CALL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 (Texigryphaea hilli) Lower Kiowa Shale (Texigryphaea mucronata) Edwards,Comanche Peak,Goodland, Kiamichi,and Walnut. (Texigryphaea navia) Fredericksburg,Kiamichi, some spill over to Duck Creek or rework? (Texigryphaea belvederensis) Kiowa Shale (Texigryphaea pitcheri) Caddo, Fredericksburg,Washita. Comanche Peak,Duck Creek,and Kiamichi (Texigryphaea gibberosa) Washita. Denton,Upper Fort Worth, and Georgetown. (Texigryphaea corrugata) Denton ? (Texigryphaea washitaensis corrugata) Denton ? (Texigryphaea washitaensis Hill) Fredericksburg,Washita. Kiamichi, Duck Creek,Fort Worth,Denton,Weno, and Main Street. (Texigryphaea roemeri ) Buda,Del Rio,Grayson and Main Street. (Texigryphaea mexicana) Hudspeth County There are 23 others as to date and countless suborders most can be found in Central Texas and the others in West Texas, and there are a lot of mimics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 One last thing....... Texigryphaea marcoui and Texigryphaea mucronata are not the same. After digging in both of their beds for some time complete fossils were found (note) and there are marked differences. I am talking of thousands of oysters people,most obvious is the shell size at their perspective age and thickness of shells. Marcoui has a much thinner shell, and is a small animal than mucronata which shows this further in most cases by the size of the muscle scar and upper valve. Texigryphaea marcoui on the other hand had a feature like frills that came out from the growth lines and maybe used for holding itself fast in the sediments if Texigryphaea mucronata had these I never found them. note: Most think they find really good fossil oysters, not really. The thin edges and other features get knocked of over their life span and just over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erose Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Hey, most excellent post from JPBowden. The "gryphyaeas" have been split, lumped and re-split a few times from what I gather. I also agree that those are two different species. Finsley just latched onto one view of the issue but ask another group of paleontologists and you will get a different view. His book is a great resource but it is still just a general identification guide. To be absolutely sure you need more detailed papers or books. In my catalog I always make a note of what my identification references were. Later if I get better specimens or new info I can go back and double check what led me to the first ID. In the Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician) one scientist, last century, named dozens of Platystrophias based on very subtle differences and stratigraphic position. Another then put almost ALL of them back together into a very small number. But those of us who have collected there can easily recognize something in between. Maybe a half dozen easily recognizable species and generally occurring in specific beds. BUT if you lay them out all together they do tend to blur together. Scientific names are always moving targets. Genera and species get revised all the time. Following those changes can make you nuts but it is inherent to the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seldom Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 How about 40 lbs of Philly Cheesteaks? Got 40 lbs hot beach sand full of pull tabs from the 80's and early 90's Galveston Island 32 miles long 2 miles wide 134 bars 23 liquor stores any questions? Evolution is Chimp Change. Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain! "I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening carefully. Most people never listen." Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Scientific names are always moving targets. Genera and species get revised all the time. Following those changes can make you nuts but it is inherent to the science. You're not kidding, one bed was wild to say the least, took some samples spent 8 months doing research on them and found one reference to them. It is called Texigryphaea vesica, someone down in Mexico found one named it and little else. It looks like Texigryphaea roemeri with one exception, jutting out from it is a 6" long shell stabilizer. I was once told that only 3% of the fossils remain to be found, the teacher who said this was a fool and now knows it. I send her tape and pictures ever month. The problem all along was not enough people hunting for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bowen Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Wow, I think I'm way too new at this to even begin to differinciate between these. I'll learn eventually I'm sure, but I think I'll stick to ammonites for now. lol. The internet sucks for this type of identification unless you happen to know the names you want to search for. I better go buy some books. Dave Bowen Collin County, Texas. Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel. 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