GuidesMagazineToolsFossilsHunts
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #1 
Years ago I collected some rock from the quarry and then mislaid them. I recently found them again and started to prep them. The first photo is a piece I have prepped. It shows its full width, and when I started to prep it, only the top part, (above the break line), of the ammo was visible.

20190108_115540_001.jpg  After I started to prep. I discovered the rock to be full of surprises. I had to destroy some bits of fossils to get to the better pieces. I would appreciate any identification anybody can make please.

20190108_125837.jpg 

20190108_125754.jpg 

20190108_125645.jpg 

20190108_125608.jpg 

20190108_115641.jpg 

20190108_115612.jpg


__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
estwing

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 210
Reply with quote  #2 
First and last ammos could be Leioceras or similar, the third looks a bit like Tmetoceras, both Aalenian

[Leioceras_opalinum__Burton_Bradstock__Inferior_Oolite__Dorset__UK_3] 
Leioceras opalinum

[466e919e2154f09c8f7bdbe05dd4a0ea] 
Tmetoceras scissum

But I could well be wrong
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #3 
Many thanks for your reply. I will take your id if no one else says different. I am assuming that the very small ammo on my second post maybe the same as the big one on my first post.
I would really like for somebody to identify the other little ammo as that has come up rather nice. The gastropod/bivalve is quite large so hope that may be identified. The long thin fossil has me totally baffled as to what it could be. I may have to see if I can clean it up more or get better pictures.
Anyway many thanks again for replying.
John T 

__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #4 
Can anyone put an id to the bivalve in picture 6 please.
__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
Richard

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 404
Reply with quote  #5 
HI 
Can't help with the bivalve but the long thin fossil is (I think) a high-spired gastropod

__________________
Richard
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #6 
many thanks.
__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
TOARCIANJOHN

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 176
Reply with quote  #7 
hI jOHN (CAMBRIAN ROCKHOUND).

Firstly, are you sure about the location. I believed the Old London Road  presented Toarcian material yet your ammonite #3 does look like Tmetoceras scissum from the upper Aalenian. A long way stratigraphically from the Toarcian. The long specimen is a turret gastropod, ?Pseudomellania sp. The #4 needs the edge exposed but looks like a rhynchonellid brachiopod. #6 perhaps an oyster, poorly preserved. #1 & 7 appear the same and coul be Toarcian or Aalenian. These discoidal ammonites are often id'd by heir original location. These could be Harpoceras, equally an Aalenian form. Anychance these are mixed.
Ammonites need to have their venter exposed, hence your #3 looks like an upper Toarcian Phymatoceras but needs further prepping.
Not sure how helpful this is but photo's are not best when there is a doubt!
Cheers TOARCIANJOHN

__________________
PALAEOJACK
0
estwing

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 210
Reply with quote  #8 
John (ToarcianJohn),
IMHO Phymtoceras has a strong keel, not present on ammonite #3, which has a groove instead.
But I may well be wrong
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #9 
My apologies to all. Picture 1 and 7 are of the same fossil. Yes it is possible that my location is wrong. It was many years ago and I have moved twice in that time. Please see my topic headed 'Old London Road Quarry again', (posted a month ago), the two pics are of one fossil and I am sure are from the same place. 
If they are not Toarcian, could one of you give me an idea whereabouts I may have found them. (Difficult one I know). I mainly collect from the Charmouth area. I did Portland Bill and I have not found where I have put those fossils. I also collected some from somewhere in the Cotswolds but it was so long ago I cannot remember where.
Any recent fossils I find now are correctly labelled with the location they were found and I am finding it easier to id them as I am working on them straight away.
I would really like some correct id and location on these if possible please.
Many thanks in advance.

__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
estwing

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 210
Reply with quote  #10 
Well, John
the most obvious location that comes to my mind is Burton Bradstock, just a few miles east of Charmouth.
Take a look at the Location page and see whether you recognise the place
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #11 
Thank you for your quick reply. Yes it could have been Burton Bradstock. In my early, unknowledgeable, days I collected bits and pieces all the way along the coast from Lyme Regis to Portland Bill. Now you have identified that for me it has allowed me to plug a hole in my Jurassic coast finds. I am currently booked for a week down at West Bay next month and Burton Bradstock was on my to do list as I had nothing (so I thought) to show from there. I will still do it. There is a nice café there. Ringstead Bay is also on my list, as last time I found zilch, and hope to be lucky this time.
Once again many thanks
John

__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
Dirty Pete

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 755
Reply with quote  #12 
Assuming it's the same Old London road, this succession may be relevant:
Wotton.jpg 
Cheers
Pete

0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #13 
Talk about confusing. All 7 pictures are of different fossils on one piece of matrix. So they will not be mixed. ToarcianJohn, you seem to think they may not be from the quarry, i.e. the timetoceras is a long way from Toarcian. Estwing then pointed me to Burton Bradstock, but now Dirty Pete sends me a clip which shows that these fossils could be from the quarry.
Many thanks Dirty Pete because I feel you have shown that I did possibly get them from the quarry, or was it Burton Bradstock? 
Help.

__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
Dirty Pete

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 755
Reply with quote  #14 
Reckon your motto sums up the situation perfectly. Just say it's from Wotton one month and Burton the next month then you'll be right 50% of the time. Even more bizarrely your rock is probably a bit of  Scissum bed which sounds a lot like Schism......

Pete 
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #15 
Hi Pete, Don't know which one of me is replying but your solution to the problem could be the right way to go, or could it. 
Being sensible now, picture 6 has been nominated as a possible oyster. I can take another picture and post if necessary, because it looks to me as if it is fairly complete and would not be any bigger than what you see. What is your opinion on it please?
John

__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
Dirty Pete

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 755
Reply with quote  #16 
 I'm no bivalve anorak but maybe some kind of Astarte, what about Neocrassina sp. 

Pete.
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #17 
I will look on the net for some pics to see what they compare like.
__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
TOARCIANJOHN

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 176
Reply with quote  #18 
It is 40 years since I looked at the roadside exposure on the OLR and never the quarry.  I would now go with Pete's cutting/Richardsons description of the quarry It certainly confirms the Tm.scissum id and the presence of Toarcian ammonites collected at the same location. So Leioceras could be ok, but a number of those discoidal ammonites are very similar. Richardson's description also suggests not Phymatoceras sp. but a Grammoceras which is an upper Toarcian species.
'verbum sat sapienti'  - hows your Latin?
TOARCIANJOHN

__________________
PALAEOJACK
0
John T

Avatar / Picture

Cambrian Rockhound
Registered:
Posts: 79
Reply with quote  #19 
My Latin is as follows: - Nota Bene   I have no money.   Non compos mentis   I never meant s**t. lol. At school I remember amo amas amat or something like that. Anyway, thank you your replies and interest. I think I need to take some more pictures from different angles for the gastropod.
I am not sure if you can still get into the quarry anymore. Last time I drove by there was new roadside fencing being erected. More and more sites seem to be getting closed off these days.
John

__________________

I think therefore I am. I doubt so maybe not. I have split personality so one of us is right.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.



Discussions on fossils, fossil hunting, rocks, locations, and identifying your finds.
(C)opyright 2018 - UKGE Ltd and UK Fossils - Contact us