Jack Kallmeyer @jkallmeyer
-
1 week, 1 day agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new specimen.Jack Kallmeyer has contributed specimen mFeM 58692 to myFOSSIL!
-
2 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
@nathan-newell Have you read “Nautilus, Beautiful Survivor, 500 million years of evolutionary history” by Wolfgang Grulke? It has lots of beautiful color photos and great information. Grulke’s previous book, “Heteromorph” was about the really odd ammonites. You’ll like that too.
-
@jkallmeyer I haven’t read either of those, but I’ll be sure to put them on my to-read list! Thanks!
-
-
2 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
Osgood doesn’t necessarily name them to specific trace maker but the names vary based upon their morphology. I think there are at least three versions all possibly attributed to Isotelus. The terms Osgood uses at least have an ichnospecies name while I am not aware of the same with Diplichnites.
-
There are many species of Diplichnites, let me know what Osgood refers to the species as when you get a chance to reference the volume.
-
-
2 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
I go by Osgood’s work wherein he discusses Cincinnatian arthropod trackways under different genera stating, “there is considerable doubt as to the true affinities of the commonly mentioned genera of supposed trilobite tracks… Diplichnites” (p352, 355). So each of the trackways I have submitted would have different ichnogenera and none would be Diplichnites. Has some worker since Osgood thrown all of this out?
-
I don’t have access to Osgood’s book at this moment. I was taught that it’s bad form to name the track after the tracemaker because many different animals can make similar tracks.
If you want to follow Osgood, that is fine just include the year of the publication in the notes so someone else can follow in your steps. As you currently have it, they are not ichnotaxa but regular taxa – which is what I was working to correct this morning.
-
-
2 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
That sounds right although I did not include the actual trace fossil taxonomy which I probably do not know. I included the taxonomy of the possible trace maker. Poor form… but my original purpose wasn’t to do a proper museum label but rather to show people what a trace fossil from a given critter looked like.
-
That’s why I’m around, to help with figuring out the correct information! I would think this would be Diplichnites (generic assignment) – very common for arthropod trackways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplichnites
https://www.trilobites.info/trace.htm
http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/diplichnites.htmlHope this is helpful. Trace fossils are a secret passion of mine.
-
I go by Osgood’s work wherein he discusses Cincinnatian arthropod trackways under different genera stating, “there is considerable doubt as to the true affinities of the commonly mentioned genera of supposed trilobite tracks… Diplichnites” (p352, 355). So each of the trackways I have submitted would have different ichnogenera and none would be Diplichnites. Has some worker since Osgood thrown all of this out?
-
I don’t have access to Osgood’s book at this moment. I was taught that it’s bad form to name the track after the tracemaker because many different animals can make similar tracks.
If you want to follow Osgood, that is fine just include the year of the publication in the notes so someone else can follow in your steps. As you currently have it, they are not ichnotaxa but regular taxa – which is what I was working to correct this morning.
-
-
-
-
2 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
Perhaps pseudofossil isn’t a good choice. It is a pseudo trace fossil. Since trace fossils are those made by an animal doing something and this trace is made by water currents acting on a piece of crinoid stem I don’t think it can be called a trace fossil. Is that correct? This is not mistaken for a crinoid but might be mistaken for a real trace fossil.
-
Okay, that makes more sense to me! You are correct, a trace fossil indicates animal behavior and this is nature acting on the (dead?) animal parts.
-
-
2 weeks, 5 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
Unable to upload image with scale sending via email
-
2 weeks, 6 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
I created a new image with scale bar and size but once again could not upload the image!!!! I sent the replacement image to you by email. I also sent feedback again.
-
I got it updated & sent a reply email – we will figure it out eventually or Max will get the additional option up!
-
-
2 weeks, 6 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
Jen,
I could fudge one in based on the dimensions listed here. This was the first specimen I cut from this locality for Carl Brett at UC. He has the specimen. Do you still need a scale bar?
-
If the specimen is no longer under your care it is *less vital* to get the scale bar added.
-
-
2 weeks, 6 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
I took Richmondian out of the group. I have no idea what Group means in the Cincinnatian. Also updated taxonomy.
-
I’ll reach out to Chris and see what he says about it. Do you have this image with a scale bar?
-
Unable to upload image with scale sending via email
-
-
-
2 weeks, 6 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
This one is 25 mm
-
3 weeks agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
@jbauer Jen, Jen, Jen, it is 10 mm as indicated below the bar 🙂 Hardly visible in the thumbnail but OK when you enlarge the photo. Got you on this one… BTW, I no longer have this specimen. Traded it for something or other.
-
Oh my gosh, it was so small my old eyes couldn’t see it!!! Worst part is – I did enlarge it. Okay, I’ll put that in the field notes for good measure.
-
-
3 weeks agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
All fixed.
-
Thanks, Jack. How big is the scale bar?
-
@jbauer Jen, Jen, Jen, it is 10 mm as indicated below the bar 🙂 Hardly visible in the thumbnail but OK when you enlarge the photo. Got you on this one… BTW, I no longer have this specimen. Traded it for something or other.
-
Oh my gosh, it was so small my old eyes couldn’t see it!!! Worst part is – I did enlarge it. Okay, I’ll put that in the field notes for good measure.
-
-
-
-
3 weeks agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
I made changes as suggested.
-
3 weeks, 1 day agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
Yes. I added that.
-
Excellent! Thanks.
-
-
3 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
@jbauer Ha! welcome to the ever confusing world of algae, porifera and corals. So, Dermatostroma glyptum (this specimen) has been redescribed by Dixon, Bolton, and Copper (1986 JP) (copy of same coming to you in email) as a heliolitid coral Ellisites glyptum. Other species within Dermatostroma apparently remain stromatoporoids within that genus. This is also noted with this reference in the latest Treatise Part E, Revised, Volume 4, Chapter 16B, page 42. I do not currently have an overall view nor one with a scale bar. I’ll have to re-photograph and re-post new photos.
-
3 weeks, 2 days agoJack Kallmeyer posted a new activity comment
@jbauer This Dermatostroma is not a glyptum so therefore remains a Dermatostroma. It could be scabrum but I am not sure. I will have to dig this one out an add a scale bar.
-
3 weeks, 5 days agoJack Kallmeyer and Bill Heimbrock are now friends
-
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@jbauer@bheimbrock  I could put a plea in the next DD bulletin but it won’t come out until mid-September. My only other option is a mass email to DD members ahead of that.
-
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@bheimbrock Hey Bill! Don’t be trying to replace me as Dry Dredgers bulletin editor. I like doing that 🙂
- Load More
