Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 25, 2020 at 7:45 pm #68211Jack KallmeyerModerator
@theodore-gray Frankly, they all look alike to me. However, I suggest you obtain a copy of Collector’s Guide to Texas Cretaceous Echinoids by William W Morgan, Schiffer publishing, 2016. He’s got all of them covered.
February 6, 2020 at 3:09 pm #64644Jack KallmeyerModerator@samantha-ocon , @sadie-mills I have an answer for you. I got the following information from one of the prep lab people who actually use these tools:
The normal tool we use is Chicago Pneumatic scribe which comes in any number of sizes depending on what you want to use it for. Paleo Tools has a wide selection of the Chicago and also services them. We have a coarse one for removing bulk matrix and a finer tipped one for finer work. Invertebrate paleo has some new tools that they call “German” which are Universal Tool air scribes UT8617. I was told they were around $900 apiece but online I see them listed for around $255. The Chicago runs around the same.
I hope this helps
Jack
February 5, 2020 at 2:24 pm #64624Jack KallmeyerModerator@samantha-ocon I could check to see what they use in the Cincinnati Museum prep labs. Maybe that will help. I am laid up with a foot injury so I’ll have to get one of my friends to check.
Jack
February 5, 2020 at 1:12 pm #64623Jack KallmeyerModerator@samantha-ocon I am sorry I can’t offer any help along those lines. I don’t use this type of equipment as it isn’t generally needed for most fossils around here. “hard core” people who do lots of this type of work are the ones who use these. If you do get one of these remember that you still need a strong suction device pulling away the material so you don’t breath the fines. These fines can cause lung damage even many years in the future.
Jack
September 16, 2019 at 4:11 pm #60286Jack KallmeyerModerator@sadie-mills @carl-lewis A lot depends on the preservation material for the trilobite. Most will be calcitic and will be adversely affected by any chemical cleaner that will dissolve limestone. To remove loose or soft shale or mud a toothbrush with water and an optional mild detergent will help. If the limestone matrix is covering part of the trilobite there is no free lunch . . . air scribes and air abrasive cleaning by an expert preparator are required. Inexperienced use of these tools can ruin a fossil in the blink of an eye.
July 26, 2019 at 4:25 pm #57939Jack KallmeyerModerator@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.
July 26, 2019 at 4:21 pm #57932Jack KallmeyerModerator@bheimbrock Hey Bill! Don’t be trying to replace me as Dry Dredgers bulletin editor. I like doing that 🙂
July 26, 2019 at 2:27 pm #57909Jack KallmeyerModerator@jbauer @bheimbrock Bill is the only Dredger I know who has the talent to do this. I don’t know about his availability though. Maybe Bill can suggest others.
Jack
June 19, 2019 at 4:32 pm #56140Jack KallmeyerModeratorI can only address cleaning as I don’t use a microscope for photography (macro lenses only).
A stereoscope with step-wise or variable power is the best for cleaning small specimens. Larger specimens can be worked on using a ring light with a magnifying lens in the center. The key is you want both of your hands free to manipulate and work on the specimen. The most versatile stereoscope would be one mounted on a boom stand. This type of mount allows the most range of motion both vertically and horizontally. A stand with the microscope mounted on a post is next best as that allows a bigger vertical range of motion than a fixed base type scope.
I find I do most of my cleaning with 10x magnification. Sometimes I use 15x or 20x but not very often.
When doing cleaning where water is involved, some microscopes allow an additional glass splatter guard that can be mounted below the objective lens.
Stereoscopes can be very expensive when purchased new especially if they are big name brands like Nikon, Canon, Leica, Bausch & Lomb. Good used ones can be had for less money but be sure to check it out first as repairs are expensive. Reasonably priced new stereoscopes of lesser known brands can be had for $300. Always make sure the optics are good and there is no distortion (view a straight line grid to be sure all lines remain parallel).
January 27, 2019 at 10:13 pm #45777Jack KallmeyerModerator@rleder Hi Ronny. I was going back through old forums and thought I’d update my previous answer about the Cincinnati Museum Center status. The museum is open finally! It’s been open for a month or so now. However, they are only able to install exhibits in stages so only a few new exhibits are open (and none of the old ones). They are revamping everything and only a few things will be as they were before the shut-down (the physical cave and ice age walk through are the same but will end up with new peripherals). The only thing open in the natural history side is a brand new dinosaur exhibit with seven skeletons. It’s pretty cool. The prep lab is open so visitors can see people working on fossils through a viewing window. They just opened the OMNI Max theater. It has gone from film to digital with new screens, new audio and wider seats to fit our population 😉 The mosaics that fill the dome in the rotunda have all been cleaned one tile at a time. This is amazing.
I hope your new museum is coming along as well.
December 29, 2018 at 8:15 pm #44596Jack KallmeyerModerator@karen-metcalf This looks like a mastodon tooth to me. Even if it is some other kind of tooth it is a super find!
Jack
September 12, 2018 at 11:08 pm #41504Jack KallmeyerModerator@greg-kessinger Canadian pebble is probable. The material on the surface would not have survived the glacial action that rounded the pebble. My thought is that this is a post glacial mineralogic creation, perhaps caliche?
From my own experience, I have a small pebble that I found as a kid that was split in two with both sides together. It is red sandstone (?) and inside is the impression of a Devonian brachiopod. So this one made it from Canada to Dayton, Ohio.
The other improbable specimen was found by a fellow Dry Dredger here in Cincinnati. This was a small slab with a complete well preserved Devonian Phacops trilobite from the Toledo, Ohio area. How that survived is unimaginable.
Jack
July 10, 2018 at 8:47 pm #39857Jack KallmeyerModeratorJune 25, 2018 at 10:17 pm #39459Jack KallmeyerModerator@david-powers Your mesh objects are bryozoan fronds. Possibly from the genus Archimedes. I’m not familiar with this particular formation but in the Mississippian of Indiana they would be from Archimedes most likely.
Jack
May 3, 2018 at 5:17 pm #35777Jack KallmeyerModerator@nathan-newell, @evan-walsh My thought was a moldaic preservation of a crinoid stem segment.
Jack
March 19, 2018 at 7:56 pm #31539Jack KallmeyerModerator@geoff-ruonavarra I don’t see any fossils myself. It looks like a piece of man made terrazzo or something that was cut with a diamond saw. A natural break would not be that smooth and parallel sided, especially since the smooth break goes through all the clasts with no unevenness. That’s my opinion.
February 24, 2018 at 6:18 pm #30785Jack KallmeyerModerator@hunter-thurmond Poop! It looks like a fecal string to me. I found crap like that (pun intended) in my screenings at Venice Beach years ago.
Jack
January 31, 2018 at 10:27 pm #30580Jack KallmeyerModerator@inkar-arzah At first glance, this looks like a fragment of a worn horn coral (Grewingkia) to me.
December 6, 2017 at 10:16 pm #29537Jack KallmeyerModerator@gail-tennant, @jim-chandler I’d say it is definitely bone and I don’t see any matrix on it. You need to have someone put eyes on the specimen before you start removing anything that you think is matrix as it may be part of the fossil.
The specimen looks quite porous. Is it fairly light in weight or really heavy like a rock of the same size? I agree with Jim in that it could be a hoof core.
Jack
November 25, 2017 at 10:25 pm #29371Jack KallmeyerModerator@jordan-oldham Jordan, I don’t see in your description where you found this other than near your university. You didn’t identify the university. Sorry if I missed something. I’d like to see clearer photos in hi-res that I could enlarge. Having said that, here is what I think so far:
This does appear to be a Eucalyptocrinites (this is the currently accepted genus as they have dropped using “crinus” on this one).
The crinoids in Fossils of Ohio from the Cedarville Dolomite are internal molds. No actual original calyx plates are preserved. That’s why they may look like blobs plus the illustrations of them in Fossils of Ohio is not all that great. Is this the correct Formation where this was found? From what I can see, your specimen appears to have original calyx plates and that would be very unusual for the dolomite. The Eucalyptocrinites proboscidialis from the Cedarville Dolomite illustrated in Fossils of Ohio is the same illustration used in the Treatise (T497, Fig 299, 1d). The specimen is an internal mold and does not appear to be what you have.
Jack
-
AuthorPosts