These are two of my favorite species from the Chipola Formation, perhaps because they are both relatively rare and it took me several years (and many collecting trips) to find specimens for my own collection. Nonetheless, all of the specimens I have were collected in only two trips!
Both species of Turbo found in the Chipola Formation appear to be limited to coral reef deposits, and in fact, all of the specimens shown below were collected in the offshore patch reef facies.
Turbo (Halopsephus?) chipolanus Schmelz, 1995 is the more common species, with 9 specimens in the type lot (7 from TU 555 on the Chipola River, and 2 from TU 1048 along Farley Creek). Schmelz considered this species most similar to the rare Recent species, Turbo haraldi Robertson, 1957. I have 4 specimens of this species in my collection, 3 of which are shown below. They measure from 15mm to 23 mm in height, in line with the material in the type lot.
Turbo chipolanus Schmelz, 1995
Turbo (Taeneaturbo) pactilis Schmelz, 1995 is my favorite species, due to both its size and rarity. The type lot contains one complete specimen from TU 555 on the Chipola River, one incomplete specimen from TU 547 on the Chipola River, and 3 fragments from TU 1048 along Farley Creek. Schmelz compared this species to Turbo dominicensis Gabb, 1873 from the Cercado Formation of the Dominican Republic, as well as the Recent species, Turbo canaliculatus Hermann, 1781. I have only one specimen of this species in my collection, but as you can see, it is much larger than the holotype (45mm versus 27mm in height) and in almost perfect condition.
Here’s a good one for the Recent muricid collectors out there, as well as fossil collectors from the Indo-Pacific region.
This small specimen is from the Miocene of West Java, Indonesia (Nyalindung, Sukabumi). I couldn’t find anything resembling it in the current version of my Fossil Muricidae Worldwide Checklist keyword search. To me, it looks more like an ergalataxine than a muricopsine. Unfortunately, it is somewhat worn, and the aperture isn’t complete.
Any ideas? I’d also appreciate any information on good — recent — literature sources for information on the Miocene of Java, Indonesia, since I have several other unidentified shells from here.
OK, I’m finally doing it. I’ve resisted for years, but Merle et al.’s new book is forcing me into it. Specifically, recognizing the elevation of Phyllonotus and Siratus to full generic status. As well as Vokesimurex and Bolinus (formerly considered subgenera of Haustellum). And accepting the subgenus Triplex for all fossil species in the Western Atlantic previously referred to Chicoreus s.s.
I know I’m stubborn. After all, Dr. Edward Petuch elevated Phyllonotus and Vokesimurex, as well as many other muricid subgenera, to full generic status many, many years ago. But quite honestly, I never pay much attention to what Dr. Petuch does. Because hardly any of his generic reassignments come with any written justification whatsoever. And I like a bit of evidence that I can weigh before rearranging everything in my collection based on one man’s unsupported opinion.
But my two visits to the Florida Museum of Natural History over the last year have forced the issue. FLMNH has recently moved toward updating their collection database to elevate both Phyllonotus and Siratus from being subgenera of Chicoreus to being full-fledged genera. Their decision is in part supported by the taxonomy used by Malacolog.
However, I still resisted, wanting more solid reasons for making the change in my own collection database. Merle et al. have helped me along the way to finding much of that justification. While I don’t repeat their reasons here, I do point you to the relevant pages of their new book, so that you can do the research for yourself.
Chicoreus (s.s.) andChicoreus (Triplex) — I have long deferred to Dr. Emily Vokes’ work in resisting the move to C. (Triplex) for my specimens from outside the Indo-Pacific region. But she has been retired for quite some time now, so I need to “get with the program.” You can find a thorough discussion of Chicoreus s.s. in Merle et al. (2011), pages 91-94, and a discussion of C. (Triplex) in the same book, pages 100-105. References are also provided to Houart’s original work on both subgenera, with which Dr. Vokes had originally found unconvincing for the Western Atlantic species. To sum it up, all fossil species of Chicoreus found in the Western Atlantic region now belong in C. (Triplex), according to both Houart and Merle et al.
Siratus and Vokesimurex — Siratus and Vokesimurex have closely related sculptural patterns (see Merle et al.’s book, page 72, for details), which “easily distinguish” them from Chicoreus. The relationship between Siratus and Vokesimurex, and their distinction from Chicoreus, is also supported by molecular data (see Barco et al., 2010).
Phyllonotus — see Merle et al. (2011), pages 114-117 for a discussion of the genus.
Haustellum and Bolinus — The differences between Murex, Haustellum, Siratus, and Bolinus have been discussed at length in the past. However, my database retained Bolinus as a subgenus of Haustellum until today. Merle et al. discuss how Bolinus differs from these other genera on page 76 of their new book.
My Fossil Muricidae database is now updated, based on the generic assignments and species lists used in Merle et al.’s book. To see only a list of the database records that have changed, please visit this page. In future blog posts, I will discuss some species associated with the above genera individually, because they have synonymized quite a few European fossil species, and also reassigned a few Western Atlantic fossil species in ways with which I don’t agree.
Figured it was time to get a more colorful blog theme. Currently torn between University of Georgia colors (red/black) and Seattle Slew racing silks colors (black/yellow). UGA is winning at the moment. 🙂 Hope you like the new layout!
Also, the time has finally come to split out my interests in both fossil collecting and horse racing, and to focus THIS blog exclusively on the former. For up-to-date photos of my racing excursions, please visit my Flickr site. Thanks!
This is the first of many reviews of the new book, Fossil and Recent Muricidae of the World: Part Muricinae. Today, I begin with a brief discussion of the authors’ views on species formerly classified by Emily Vokes as belonging to the genera Calotrophon, Poirieria (Panamurex), and Acantholabia.
Unfortunately, I didn’t take any photos while at the Florida Museum of Natural History over spring break, but I figured I would share some of my favorite photos from my trip to Tampa Bay Downs, as well as Laurel Park’s “Racing 101 Day at the Races,” over the same time period. I just bought a Canon 450D DSLR camera in January, with a Sigma 50-200mm telephoto lens, and have really enjoyed learning how to use it. I really wish I’d had it for all those big horse races I attended last year, including the Triple Crown and Breeder’s Cup! You can view my full racing albums on Flickr.
While I was visiting FLMNH last week, I was shown a copy of Didier Merle’s new book on fossil and recent Muricidae. I hastily ordered myself a copy, thinking I would have to wait a month to receive it (since it is shipped from Germany), but it arrived earlier this morning!
This is an immense book (almost 650 pages), with literally hundreds of color plates of both fossil and recent species of the subfamily Muricinae. In such an ambitious book, one might expect to find numerous typographical errors, and in fact that is what I found when I glanced through the book last week at the museum. However, it is still an impressive undertaking, and quite a useful resource for fossil and recent collectors alike.
Merle and his peers have made quite a few taxonomic changes, some explained in this book, and others presented without much explanation. It will take me some time to read through it, absorb the reasoning for the name changes (both at the generic and species level), research changes that are not documented in the book, and come to my own conclusions. Then, of course, I will have to update all of the names on my Fossil Murex Website accordingly. However, it should be an enjoyable journey. I did notice last week that virtually all of the Chipola Formation specimens figured in the book, as well as a few specimens from younger Florida localities, were originally collected by me and traded to collectors in Europe years ago.
Thus, in the coming weeks, I will get back to regular blogging again, with my first task to present some of the key changes presented in this book that will affect fossil muricid collectors — particularly those from my “neck of the woods,” i.e., the Florida Cenozoic. I’m sure not everyone can afford to buy this book off the bat (120 Euros, plus shipping costs from Europe), so hopefully my posts will inform them of the key changes, and help them decide whether to invest in the book or not. I would suggest making the investment, despite the numerous errors, because the photo plates are absolutely gorgeous.
Fossil and Recent Muricidae of the World: Part Muricinae
Didier Merle, Bernard Garrigues, and Jean-Pierre Pointier
ConchBooks, Hackenheim, Germany (2011) http://www.conchbooks.de/
NOTE: The image above is a snapshot of the cover of my actual copy of the book.
It is not intended to be reproduced in any way.
Given the number of people who have visited my blog in the last few days looking for information on species from Farley Creek, I have added a few additional photos of both small & large gastropods to my recent posts. Have a good weekend!
This is another “quick and dirty” post — I’ll flesh out the details later. So be sure to check back if you love ceriths as much as me!
I believe that I have specimens of every species of Cerithiidae and Potamididae described from the Chipola Formation. This is not too difficult, as most species are fairly common within their ecological niche, and others are abundant throughout the entire formation. However, there are still some very interesting species found here. You can refer to Shirley Hoerle’s article on the Chipola Cerithiidae and Potamididae, published in Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, for more details on each of the species figured below.
This is a “quick and dirty” post. I could spend a day photographing small ( < 1 inch) gastropod species from Farley Creek, since most of the mollusks found there (bivalves aside) are in fact quite small. But lacking that much time, I’m focusing on those that I personally consider most interesting (sorry, turrid and marginellid lovers!!) 🙂
The greatest difficulty with identifying Farley Creek shells is the fact that nobody has worked on most of the families. When Dall, Maury, and Gardner collected in the Chipola Formation in the late 19th Century / early 20th Century, they focused most of their attention on the beds at Tenmile Creek and Alum Bluff, with some work on the northernmost beds along the Chipola River. In other words, many species found at Farley Creek — even very common ones — went undiscovered until Tulane University began collecting there in the 1960s.
I’m bogged down revising academic papers today, but still wanted to get a couple more posts out on Farley Creek. I am limiting my photos to those species most likely to be found on a single trip to Farley Creek. I have figured a few of these species in the past, but many are new. Next up will be small gastropods, as my schedule allows. After that, probably a dedicated post on ceriths later this weekend (my second favorite family after Muricidae).
Please note that “large” is a relative term when talking about Chipola shells. Most species do not grow anywhere near as large as what you see in the Pliocene beds of south Florida. Thus, when I say “large” here, I am primarily referring to species that are over a couple of inches in size in their adult form. Some of the cowries and cones figured below don’t attain nearly that size, but it is easier to figure the entire family all at once, rather than split it across two posts.
The Florida Paleontological Society is having its fall meeting this weekend, and the field trip this time around is to Farley Creek. Since I can’t go to the meeting (horse racing trumps fossil collecting this month — the Breeder’s Cup is only 3 weeks away!), I decided I would make a rudimentary guide to the fossil muricids that have been documented from the beds along Farley Creek. This may help those attending the FPS meeting to better identify their finds.
As some of you already know, I started teaching a brand new class, Social Media for Managers, this past spring (and will be teaching it again in Spring 2011). Many organizations are just now starting to adopt social media tools, and many more have yet to do so. Thus, my class has been an interesting learning experience not only for my students but for me as well. Things change so quickly in the social media world! So running this blog, and linking it to a Facebook page (and Twitter account) on the same topic is just one way that I am trying to learn how different social media tools can be used more effectively, on a personal level.
As of yet, I haven’t really figured out what sort of content to put on my Facebook page as opposed to the blog. (Right now, the Facebook page simply posts summaries and links to my posts from the blog.) However, I have discovered that it is much easier to upload a large album of photos, with comments, to Facebook than it is to write a lengthy blog post and select just a handful of photos to supplement it. Thus, I am trying something new today. In honor of the first annual National Fossil Day, I have copied four fossil-related photo albums over to my Fossil Muricidae Facebook page, and am linking them here so that you can view them in all their glory. 🙂
Ever since I was a kid growing up in Illinois, I’ve wanted to find a mammoth or mastodon in my back yard…
I also apologize for the blog silence of late, folks; I’ve been taking a much-needed vacation. Today is also Independence Day, and I am trying my hand at charcoal grilling for the first time ever! Happy 4th of July, everyone! (And if you’re from the good old USA, consider taking a little time out from your partying and BBQ’ing today to read the Declaration of Independence, if you have a chance! Its underlying principles never get old. My neighbors plan to get together at 4 PM today and listen as someone recites it out loud.)
Just ran across this cool photo of a hermit crab that had made a home in a fossil Chicoreus shell in Curacao. It’s from Barry B. Brown’s Coral Reef Photos blog. I’m assuming it is probably a specimen of Chicoreus (s.s.) brevifrons. I have many fossil muricids in my collection that show evidence of ancient hermit crab habitation, indicating that crabs have had excellent taste in personal shell collecting for a very long time! 🙂
Here’s some more info on the fossil shells of Curacao from the same blog.
I was organizing shells in my workroom over the weekend, and decided to have a little bit of fun with this display case we bought at an antique flea market a while back. We had been using it to display a growth series of specimens of Muricopsis (s.s.) shirleyae from our last trip to the Chipola Formation back in 2006. I took those specimens out, and created a display of miniature muricids from the Alum Bluff Group (which includes the Chipola, Oak Grove Sand, and Shoal River formations). Surprisingly, I was able to fit specimens (or fragments) of every single species I possess from these formations in the display containers, even extremely rare species that grow much larger. Even I was shocked!
A while back, I highlighted a specimen of Chicoreus (s.s.) floridanus E. H. Vokes, 1965 that had a double row of fronds on the penultimate varix. So it only seems fitting to this time highlight another specimen of C. floridanus that is completely lacking the same varix.
I posted a photo of my fragmentary specimens of Chicoreus (s.s.) elusivus a while back (I’ve since found at least half a dozen more fragments while cleaning my fossil workroom), while lamenting that other collectors seem to have no problem finding complete specimens without even looking for them, whereas I can’t break the curse of the shell’s name to save my life. Well, as the post title suggests, if you can’t find one of your own, just go buy one from someone else! 🙂
I got this specimen in the past year, from the Oligocene of Italy. I have no idea what species it is, but am guessing that it is some sort of Pterynotus. Its height is 30 mm. Any ideas?
Collectors in south Florida tend to get all worked up over finding Jenneria specimens, so I figured I would display one from the Aquitanian Miocene of southwestern France (length = 16 mm). The species is apparently fairly common at some sites, while rare everywhere else (shells generally aren’t truly rare when found in their naturally preferred environment, after all). It is believed to have preferred a coral reef environment.
As an American who has never self-collected in Europe (except for finding a fossil cerith along the streets of Paris back in 2001), do I really need 61 different specimens of Pterynotus (s.s.) crenulatus and all its different variants??!! The sad thing is, I know I have even more specimens than this laying around my house that I just haven’t uncovered yet…
Hunting for muricids in cemented matrix from Germany is almost as fun as hunting for them in silicified matrix from the Tampa Limestone. Below are photos of 6 different chunks of hardened matrix from Germany, all of which have at least one muricid hiding in them. It’s almost like playing “Where’s Waldo”!
Just stumbled onto this website while I was looking for information on German Oligocene fossils. It has great photos of all sorts of fossil evidence of boring organisms (and that’s not “boring” as in “dull”)! I would recommend using Google Translate to read the page, of course…
You will probably see a lot of new entries on my “Recent Additions and Updates” page over the next few days. I have not only been adding type locality information to my database, but I have also been updating generic assignments for species that are not in my personal collection, etc. There’s a lot of work left to do (months, probably…), so I won’t be posting notices every time I make changes to the database, as I normally do after I have added a batch of new photos.
Ran across this specimen as I was cleaning up my fossil workroom today. It is the rare Dolicholatirus exilis (Gabb, 1873), from the Miocene Chipola Formation of Florida. The specimen is 25 mm in height, and was collected from the coral reef facies several years ago. The species was originally described by Gabb from the Dominican Republic, where it occurs in both the Gurabo and Cercado Formations.
In 1975, Dr. Emily Vokes named Dermomurex (?Viator) curviductus from the Miocene Chipola Formation of north Florida, on the basis of what seems to be only a handful of specimens from a single locality in the basal beds along Tenmile Creek. She figured two of these specimens (51.8 mm and 10.7 mm), and mentioned another unfigured paratype for which the body whorl is presumably approximately 23 mm in size (see p.156). In the FLMNH collections (which now house many of the Tulane type specimens), there are a total of 3 paratypes documented. In 1992, Dr. Vokes reported that no additional specimens had been collected by Tulane or its associates since 1975, and reassigned the species to the subgenus Dermomurex (Takia). In her writings, Dr. Vokes compared the Chipola species to “Murex” taurinensis Michelotti, 1841, from the Burdigalian of Italy and France (Peloua, Saucats). You can read a digital copy of Michelotti’s work, and view his holotype of D. (T.) taurinensis, in Google Books.
In a post earlier tonight, I mentioned how I bought several typhine specimens from the Western Atlantic region (Panama, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela) from an overseas dealer a few years ago. The specimen labeled as “Laevityphis curvirostrius Weisbrod, Venezuela, Paraguana Formation” is actually a specimen of Siphonochelus (Pilsbrytyphis) gabbi (Brown and Pilsbry, 1911), from an unknown location.
In the interests of slowly getting my fossil Muricidae database up to date, I have gone through Gertman, 1969 (“Cenozoic Typhinae of the Western Atlantic Region”), and updated the type localities and type geology for all of the fossil species discussed in that work. I’ll start working my way through the remaining Tulane volumes, covering other subfamilies in the Western Atlantic, soon!
I apologize for not posting many photos in the past week. I have been very busy going through several years’ worth of accumulated fossils and trying to organize my collection so I can actually find things when I need them! (The specimen figured below is in fact one that I haven’t been able to find since moving to Pennsylvania two years ago!)
In keeping with my tendency to name typhines as “Specimen of the Week” more often than any other type of muricid, this week’s featured specimen is Siphonochelus (Pilsbrytyphis) gabbi (Brown and Pilsbry, 1911).
In 1947, Julia Gardner named two species of ocenebrines from the Alum Bluff Group. The first was “Pteropurpura dryas” from the Oak Grove Sand, now referred to Pterorytis (Microrhytis). The second was “Eupleura pterina” from the Shoal River Formation, which was named on the basis of only two specimens, which Gardner admitted might not be fully mature. Both species are shown in the image below.
Daniel went outside to catch some fireflies a few minutes ago, and came back with this! Isn’t (s)he cute? (We turned him — or her — loose right away, of course.)
An assortment of large specimens today…I believe that all three of the specimens in the first photo are Lyncina theresae Dolin, 1991. They were all collected in August 2000 from the reef facies, and range in size from 43 to 55 mm.
Two more interesting specimens that I have never figured out the proper name for. Presumably these both belong to the subgenus Erronea (Adusta). However, three different species of this subgenus have been described from the Chipola Formation, so I am not sure exactly which species these specimens are.
The following 2 photos show Talparia (s.s.) mariaelisabethae Dolin, 1991, by far the smallest Chipola species (most specimens are generally not much larger than 20 mm). All of my specimens were collected at a site in the coral reef facies, and are quite abraded. It is still one of my favorite species, however.
I traded for these specimens a few years ago. They are from the Badenian (Middle Miocene) of Band, Veszprem, Hungary, and were originally labelled as “Favartia nov. sp.” I immediately noticed the similarity between these specimens and two species of Favartia (Pygmaepterys) from the Miocene Chipola Formation of Florida, F. (P.) pratulum Vokes & D’Attilio, 1980 and F. (P.) drezi Vokes & D’Attilio, 1980. Both species are quite rare in the Chipola — Vokes (1994) reported 3 type specimens of F. (P.) drezi (all collected prior to 1980), and an unknown (but certainly small) number of specimens of F. (P.) pratulum collected from 5 different Chipola localities (all but one prior to 1980). I have two specimens of each species in my own private collection (see below).
So, being bored, I decided to visit the Smithsonian website to see what (if any) photos of fossil muricids they might have available for online viewing.
Found the Department of Paleobiology’s collections search page, and typed in “Muricidae.” The results page that appeared showed only 5 records, and 3 of them were for type specimens of Attiliosa gretae, a species that was named after me back in 1999, by Dr. Emily Vokes.
Imagine that!
(NOTE: if you want to view a more complete list of the fossil muricid specimens in their collection, you have to get a bit more creative and search on things like “Murex” or “Typhis.” Even going to the Detailed Search page, and typing “Muricidae” in the family field, only returns the same 5 records. As a former database administrator, things like this drive me absolutely batty! 🙂 )
I love looking at (and occasionally even getting to handle) fossil shells from historically important collections — i.e., shells that were collected by, and studied by, famous paleontologists. So I am passing on this link to a notice that went out on the Conch-L listserv a few days ago, about specimens from the mollusk collection of the famous naturalist Carl Linnaeus now being available for viewing online.
Please note that identification errors — or at least anomalies from differences in generic assignments over time (Linnaeus did live in the 18th century, after all) — may pop up as you browse through the collections. For example, when I clicked on the link for “Murex asper,” expecting to see images of a variant of Pterynotus tricarinatus from the Eocene of France and England, photos of a cerithid turned up instead.
For some species, you can even see evidence of what I assume is damage to the specimens from storage / display methods of the past. An example can be seen by browsing through the images for “Murex clathratus.”
Overall, an incredibly fascinating window into the past…
I honestly have no idea what species this is in the first photo, but I have several specimens in my collection (from both the brackish sand and back reef facies). I really like the species, even though I’m not sure what it is, as the shells are small but very attractive, often retaining their original luster and color pattern of small spots.
Trying out the new reblogging function in WordPress that I just learned about today!
An interesting perspective (reality check?) on the size of the Gulf oil spill — click on the link in the blog below to go to a website where you can view the oil spill superimposed over a map of where YOU live… (Superimposing it over Washington, DC seems somehow appropriate right now…)
There are a lot of images and maps showing the size and scope of the oil spill in the gulf. It can be hard to mentally visualize just how big the spill is because most of the map shows the gulf around an area you may not be familiar with. I found this interesting link on Twitter that shows the oil spill in the gulf then shoots it over to your hometown so you can see how big the spill is in relation to some geography you are familiar with. Scary t … Read More
In the first photo: A couple of beautiful Cypraeorbis specimens from the back reef facies. These are presumably Cypraeorbis ballista (Dall, 1915), although a total of three species of Cypraeorbis have been described from the Chipola Formation (I’m not very good at telling them apart). Both specimens retain their original color pattern and luster. The slightly larger specimen on the right is 55 mm long.
In the second photo: Additional specimens from other localities, demonstrating the difference in preservation. The two specimens on the right were collected at a shoreline locality in January 1995. The dark colored specimen on the left was collected at a brackish sand site in June 1995. It is the largest specimen I ever got from that facies, and one of my largest specimens overall, at 59 mm long.
As alluded to in my previous posts on the genus Pterorytis, Vermeij and Vokes (1997) have synonymized several species listed in Petuch’s (1994) Atlas of Florida Fossil Shells with P. umbrifer and P. fluviana. However, everyone must make their own decision as to which scientific opinion they feel is correct, or whether the truth lies somewhere in between.
I need to take a break from writing lengthy posts for the next few days, as I have a lot of research and reviews to get done this week, so I will be posting 1-2 photos per day (with minimal commentary) all week of cypraeid species in my collection from the early Miocene Chipola Formation of Florida. (Don’t worry; I’ll still try to throw in a few muricid posts along the way, plus the Belmont Stakes is coming up on Saturday!)
There are innumerable things in life that are more important than fossil shells, so today I am taking a break from posting about fossils and paying homage to those who died while serving our country in the military. I have to confess that I always took those in our armed forces a bit for granted, until my oldest son decided to enter the Navy after he finished high school. Since then, I have developed a much better appreciation for, and much more gratitude toward, those who both serve and have served, particularly those who willingly chose this career path and paid the ultimate sacrifice protecting their country and its allies, when only in their late teens / early twenties.
Still on holiday, so I am only making a short post today.
Several weeks back, I figured my fragment of Pterotyphis (s.s.) calhounensis Gertman, 1969 as “Specimen of the Week.” Some people might mock it, but considering there are only 3 fragmentary specimens (originally from the Tulane University collections) and one complete specimen (somewhat unfortunately uncovered with the assistance of my ex, while he was on a field trip with the FLMNH folks) documented in the collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History, I am still pretty proud of it.
So today, I am finishing off figuring the known species of the genus Pterotyphis from Florida. As you can tell, I really like the Typhinae, as I tend to figure them in my posts more so than any other muricid group. 🙂
The Fossil Murex Blog 