Paleontological Resources Preservation US Forest Service

Amateurs will not be allowed to do research?

Amateurs and/or non-professionals will need a permit (if they can get one) to collect fossils for research.   Casual collecting just will not fit the bill if these regulations go into effect.  Who can do research collecting only 5 specimens of each type of fossil per year?  And what is a type of fossil?  Can I only collect 5 cephalopod fossils per year?
  In fact, even professionals and academics will need a permit to collect invertebrate fossils for research (which is what they all collect for) on any public land (the BLM will adopt the same regs as the USFS), which has not been necessary before.

From the Definitions Section:

4. The term casual collecting would restate the definition contained in 16 U.S.C. 470aaa of the Act. To be considered casual collecting, the activity would mean all of the following: Collecting of a reasonable amount of common invertebrate or plant paleontological resources for non-commercial personal use, either by surface collection or the use of non-powered hand tools, resulting in only negligible disturbance to the Earth's surface and other resources.

 14. The term non-commercial personal use as used in the definition of casual collecting would clarify the types of use allowed under casual collection, and would mean uses other than for purchase, sale, financial gain, or research. Common invertebrate and plant paleontological resources collected for research purposes is not personal use and would need to be authorized under a permit in accordance with Sections 291.13 through 291.20. Exchange of common invertebrate and plant paleontological resources among casual collectors would be permissible as long as such resources were collected in accordance with the Act and the proposed regulations.

 18. The term reasonable amount as used in the definition of casual collecting would quantify the maximum amount of common invertebrate and plant paleontological resources that could be removed from Federal lands. A person may remove up to one gallon of material in volume or 25 pounds in weight, and up to five specimens of each type of fossil per calendar year. If the fossil specimens are contained within rock slabs, the reasonable amount would be limited to a slab that can be hand-carried by one person without the aid of mechanical devices. The authorized officer may modify the amount that is reasonable in order to preserve fossil-bearing locations that may be at risk of being depleted, thereby preserving paleontological resources in accordance with the Act.

I think I'll post a comment to this one...

If I can make the July 22, 2013 deadline...


Paleontological Resources Preservation US Forest Service

PRIONITE-MARE

The Family PRIONITIDAE is a nightmare of taxonomy.  The amount of intraspecific variation, or even intrageneric variation is overwhelming.  Most generic assignments are based on the shape, size, amount, and/or lack of ribs, bullae, nodes, whether they cross the venter or stop short, whether the nodes are mid flank or start near the umbilicus, whether the inner whorls or the outer whorls are smooth.  A lot of specific and generic assignments are arbitrary, a slightly arched venter instead of a flat venter is cause for different generic assignment of forms that basically look exactly alike. 

Tozer, 1994, in his monograph of Canadian Triassic Ammonoids, discussed the differences between Population Taxonomy and Typological Taxonomy and admitted that his classification, especially of the Prionitidae, was arbitrary, and to use a strictly typological taxonomy would mean almost every specimen was a seperate species.  He also talked about using the typological method just to show what the taxon looked like.

To see a Prionitid, it is easily assigned to the Prionitidae, and the beds containing it are easily assigned to the Late Smithian, and usually to the biozone and/or beds known for the Prionitidae.  Is it really necessary to split them into a bunch of different species or genera?  I suppose I could live with a few nominal species divided amongst a few genera for the time being, at least until the family is revised and a more natural classification determined.  Still, what a Prionite-mare.

For references see THIS old post, along with an old rant of the same topic. ;)

When Ammonites Fly

Along the lines of reverting to aquatic dinosaurs as has been seen in the geoblogosphere of late, I give you Duria Antiquior (above), and it's lithographic byproduct (below).  Floating on the surface of the water are ammonites with wings (or sails as conjectured some).

Clearly showing that ammonites could fly

 

Or could they?


A lot of science has been done since the art above was first seen.  Back then about the only creature known to compare the ammonites to was the Argonaut, one of the group of octopus that are known for a lot of webbing between their arms (such as this Blanket Octopus).  The "wings" of argonauts are specially modified arms used to secrete a calcium carbonate shell used to hold eggs (best seen in the top photo here).  We now compare ammonite shells more closely to the Pearly Nautilus and the animal itself to the ten armed cephalopods.  Hopefully we can advance as we learn, .

The Museum in Green River, Utah

 The Mancos Shale exhibit at the John Wesley Powell River History Museum in Green River Utah, is now open.  Along with a couple of dinosaurs and other murals, it is a very nice addition to the museum.  In the distance on the right you can see the ammonite I found and posted about back in this post, and after it was prepared in this post.

 

Here is a view of the specimen with the mural behind it.

  And the sign telling about the collection and preparation. 

And a few of the other ammonites I donated (the six on the left).  And more of the large mural behind it, unfortunately showing a wounded scaphite, or is that just the leftovers of a large marine reptile it just finished eating. ;)

For a cold, snowy, December day

San Rafael River cutting through the Swell

Just to remember those hot days of summer and early fall in the desert.  The Sinbad Formation of the Thaynes Group slopes down to river level on the left, bleached rocks of the Moenkopi Group up to the maroon Chinle Formation on the slopes of Assembly Hall Peak, with a cap of Wingate Sandstone, and Kayenta and Navajo above that on the cliffs beyond.  The leaves of the Fremont Cottonwoods just starting to foretell the cold and snow of today.

Of Cephalopods and Sponges

Early Ordovician orthoconic nautiloids in a sponge/algal deposit, back when life was just beginning to diversify.

 

Early Triassic ammonoids in a sponge/microbial deposit, back when life was beginning to re-diversify.  Just after the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.

Silica Replacement

An update for this old Calcite Replacement post.

 After finding another small ammonoid (above) in the same beds, and a discussion on TONMO, I've realized the pattern on the two fossils is that of "Beekite".  Not having a lot of experience with silicified cephalopod fossils around here, I got out the acid bottle, fizz on the matrix, no fizz on the fossil.  So instead of a Calcite replacement, they are replaced with Silica.  Beekite may be a mineral, but the word is more commonly used as a descriptive term for the concentric rings of the replacement material.  

The fossil from the first post showing the "Beekite Rings".

The First Utah Cephalopod Fossil

Title Page

Although fossil cephalopods had probably been collected by the Native Americans, fur trappers and early Immigrants for years, the 1859 Simpson Survey was one of the first scientific expeditions that collected fossils, and probably the first to collect cephalopods and have the results published.  Mr. Henry Englemann "the zealous geologist of the party", collected what is to my determination, the first fossil cephalopod to be mentioned in the scientific literature from what is now the State of Utah.   Englemanns's fossils were described and/or listed by F. B. Meek in: Appendix J., Report on the Palaeontological Collections of the Survey (p. 339-373 pls. I-V).

page 371

On page 371, in the list of Lower Carboniferous Forms, appears; Nautilus ____, undt. sp., No. 201.  It was not figured, only listed.  The given coordinates puts it just south of Fivemile Pass, a few miles west of Fairfield, a place I collected many brachiopods as a kid.  The Mississippian Manning Cyn. Shale and Great Blue Limestone both crop out in that area, so one of those formations is probably the provenance.

Though this report was completed before the Civil War, it was not printed by the government until 1876 because of it.