Farley Creek Updates

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!

 

Non-Muricids: Chipola Formation Ceriths

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.

 

Farley Creek – Small Gastropods (excluding Cerithiidae)

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.

 

Farley Creek – Large Gastropods

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.

 

Farley Creek Muricids

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.

 

Just For Fun: Miniature Muricids from the Alum Bluff Group

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!

 

If You Can’t Find It Yourself, You Can Always Buy It…

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! 🙂

 

Name That Shell…Part 9 (Pterynotus from the Italian Oligocene?)

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?

 

Non-Muricids: Dolicholatirus exilis (Gabb, 1873)

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.

 

Name That Shell (Part 8): Siphonochelus (Laevityphis) species, Locality Unknown

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.

 

Specimen of the Week — Siphonochelus (Pilsbrytyphis) gabbi

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).

 

Beta Version of New Keyword Search is Now Available!

The beta version of my new keyword search of my fossil Muricidae database is now up and running. You can visit the page directly, or get to it from my main Fossil Muricidae page.

The following database fields are automatically included in all keyword searches:

• Subfamily
• Genus
• Subgenus
• Species (including subspecies and variants)
• Author / Date
• Geographic range (result list may not be complete)
• Geologic range (result list may not be complete)
• Type locality and geology
• Figured specimen locality, country, formation, and geology

Please note the following:

• You may enter any word, phrase, or part of a word in the search field.
• Unlike my existing taxonomic and geologic search pages, this page will return species that are not in my personal collection!
• As always, I currently only display photos of species that are in my personal collection!
• Duplicate records will appear for a given species if I have it from more than one country, state, or geologic epoch.
• The comment and literature reference fields in my database are currently not searched or displayed.

Now I just have to get the database completely updated (with all type localities, etc.)….. 🙂

Eventually, I plan to make this wildcard search page more sophisticated, but I hope you will find it helpful for now!

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day Seven

Today is the last day of Chipola cowry posts! I hope you have enjoyed them.

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day Six

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.

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day Five

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.

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day Four

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.

 

Name That Shell…Part 7 (Pygmaepterys from Hungary?)

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).

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day Three

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.

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day Two

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.

 

Last Thoughts on Pterorytis…

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.

 

A Week’s Worth of Chipola Cowries – Day One

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!)

 

Specimen(s) of the Week: Finishing Off the Florida Pterotyphis

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. 🙂

 

More on Those Pesky Pterorytis…

While I am fully immersed in “Pterorytis mode,” I figured I may as well do another post on the genus (perhaps even a few more!)

 

Name Those Shells (Part 6): Making Sense of the Miocene Chicoreus of Europe

I have a number of European specimens that belong in the “Name That Shell” blog category. However, I am going to save a few steps and document several of them here, all at one time.

Quite often, I buy or trade for fossil muricid specimens that are misidentified. Sometimes I know that they are misidentified when I obtain them. Other specimens I am just not sure about, since they don’t seem to match what is in the literature. However, given I don’t have all of the latest literature on European fossil muricids, and I have never collected there myself, it is difficult to sort things out on my own.

 

Latest Website Updates – 5/26/2010

I’ve been down with a bad cold, so I haven’t been able to post much. However, I have added a number of new photos to my Fossil Muricidae website. You may view a list of all database updates since May 23rd here.

 

Latest Website Updates – 5/23/2010

I have added a couple of species (from the genus Cymia) to my Comprehensive Fossil Muricidae Species List, and have also uploaded several new / improved photos of specimens in my collection. You can view a summary of all the updates here.

 

Name That Shell…Part 5 (“Murex fusates,” really a buccinid?)

I bought this small shell several years ago, labeled as “Murex fusates” from the middle Eocene “Stone City Formation” in Burleson County, Texas. The specimen itself is slightly damaged (missing part of the siphonal canal), and I have never been able to confirm the proper generic assignment. A recent Google search on the name took me to the Proceedings of the ANSP in Google Books, so I now know that the species was described by Gilbert Harris in 1895. A search through Emily Vokes’ “Catalog of the Genus Murex” (don’t know why I didn’t check that publication years ago, when I initially got the shell — back issues are available online through the Biodiversity Heritage Library) indicates that Dr. Vokes assigned the species to the Buccinidae, but a specific generic assignment was not provided. A search on the species name in the FLMNH collections didn’t turn up anything. So I still don’t know exactly what this thing is, except that it is apparently not in fact a muricid. You can view the specimen after the jump…

 

Parallel Species in the Miocene of Florida and France, Part 1

There are many parallels between the muricid faunas of the early Miocene of northern Florida and southwestern France. In some cases, the same species is believed to occur in both places, e.g., Muricopsis (Risomurex) crassicosta (Benoist, 1873).

Back in the early 1960s, Emily Vokes of Tulane University noticed some of these parallels in the genus Chicoreus. I briefly discuss and illustrate these parallels after the jump.

 

Chicoreus (Siratus): chipolanus vs. juliagardnerae, sextoni vs. nicholsi

Like Haustellum (Vokesimurex) gilli, I often see collectors misidentifying specimens of Chicoreus (Siratus) from the early Miocene Chipola Formation of Florida. Species of Chicoreus (Siratus) are in fact found in all three formations of the Alum Bluff Group, so perhaps by figuring specimens from all three formations, I can help to clear things up a bit. If nothing else, I can provide literature references for you to look up for further information.

 

Haustellum gilli or “Murex dasus”?

There are a number of Florida fossil muricid species that are frequently misidentified in private collections. One of these is Haustellum (Vokesimurex) gilli (Maury, 1910) from the Chipola Formation (lower Miocene) of north Florida. I have known many collectors who label their specimens of H. gilli as “Murex dasus Gardner, 1947.”

I’m not really sure why so many people continue to use the name “M. dasus,” which is a synonym for H. gilli. Emily Vokes synonymized the two species nearly 50 years ago, before I was even born. It could be because more people have access to Gardner’s USGS publication series on the mollusks of the Alum Bluff Group than have access to Vokes’ work on the Cenozoic Muricidae of the Western Atlantic region, published over the years in Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology. It could also be because H. gilli was originally described from the Oak Grove Sand and not from the Chipola Formation. Many people collect in the Chipola, but very few collect in the Oak Grove Sand (which is now commonly believed to be nothing more than a facies of the Chipola). Further, gastropods are much more sparse and difficult to collect in the Oak Grove Sand. This means that most people have probably never seen a muricid from there at all, let alone enough specimens to be able to compare them against specimens from Chipola and recognize that they are the same. And of course, there are a few scientists out there (with quite fanatical followers) that believe a species absolutely cannot be found in formations of differing geological ages…and would probably insist on differentiating H. gilli and M. dasus even if they did have numerous identical specimens in their possession…  Nevertheless, it is time to do away with the name “M. dasus” once and for all!