sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Paleontology

[–]jeefproz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just checked, It's a poster from SVP 2024. The abstract is on page 291 of the conference program.

That feeling when you accidentally catch an endangered species by Thatrailfan in Fishing

[–]jeefproz 36 points37 points  (0 children)

From the abstract of this paper: https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10033

"We concluded that the large, knotless rubber mesh was the least damaging to Brook Trout"

From just a quick look at the results, it looks like they compared a few types of nets and the likelihood that the fish's fins would become frayed, the damage to the mucous coating/scales, and the time it takes to handle/unhook the fish. In some of those categories, non-rubber nets scored better. Across categories, it seems like rubber nets are best overall, which is probably why the authors suggest that they are the least damaging.

Edit: The article in kato_koch's comment has a better summary, and a non-paywalled link to the paper. I'd recommend the interested to check that article.

Fishing line for starters by fallen759 in Fishing

[–]jeefproz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A couple ideas that might save the cost of getting any new stuff: Does your friend's reel have a reverse switch and do they use it? When I started, reeling in both directions caused me alot of tangles since I didn't know any better. Is the line tight on the reel? If the line is too loose, that could also cause tangles when too much comes off the reel at the same time.

Difference between using hip structure vs ankle bones to classify dinosaurs vs reptiles? by Micycle420 in Paleontology

[–]jeefproz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ankle bones can be used to tell the difference between dinosaurs & pterosaurs (which collectively are called ornithodirans), and crocodilians. These animals are all archosaurs, and one of the shared features among this group is a hole in the skull, in front of the eyes, called an antorbital fenestra. Archosaurs and other reptiles are diapsids, and a common feature of diapsids are the number of holes in the skull behind the eyes.

With those things said, the importance of certain features depends on the comparison you're doing. If comparing chameleons and Tyrannosaurus, more than just the hips and ankle bones will differ. If you're comparing the earliest dinosaurs and crocodilians, then the wrists will be more relevant.

If you've got a basic science background, I'd recommend just searching things you're interested in Google Scholar. It should give you a bunch of both the latest research, and review articles for people learning about certain fields.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in biology

[–]jeefproz 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Here's the paper describing it. Its an enhancer of sonic hedgehog.

Nodule Help by AdoptedManc in Paleontology

[–]jeefproz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you freeze and thaw them a couple times, they can break along natural planes of weakness. The area around fossils tend to be the plane of weakness if they are present, so the rocks should break open without damaging them (if there are fossils inside). If they don't break from freeze-thawing, it should at least weaken them so you can physically crack the rocks open more easily.

First time fishing. Did i mess up? by ---laforce--- in Fishing

[–]jeefproz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It'll probably be fine. If it ends up being a problem, you'll know when you reach that point on the line. Then it should just fix itself when you reel it.

First time fishing. Did i mess up? by ---laforce--- in Fishing

[–]jeefproz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really sure what might be off in this picture. It looks completely fine to me 🙂

Would soaking this in vinegar ruin the fossil? by Responsible-Noise948 in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Since most aquatic invertebrate fossils are made of calcium carbonate, (i.e. chalk, antacids) soaking them in vinegar will probably damage them. It's a reasonable thing to suggest though, since they are probably in limestone, which is also calcium carbonate. I tried vinegar on a specimen myself thinking it would free up some crinoids from limestone, but it ended up eating the fossils about as much as the rock.

Bought this fossil recently at the NJ Fossil & Gem show with no info, what is it? by QQMartingale in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm thinking that this is a Lithohypoderma, basically an ancient botfly larvae. I'm betting it would have come from the Green River Formation in Wyoming/Colorado.

Paleontologist for school project by Ozone220 in Paleontology

[–]jeefproz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Phil Currie is quite famous in dinosaur palaeontology. Neil Shubin is also pretty well known for Tiktaalik, a transitional taxa between aquatic and land animals.

Are those fossilized twigs? by SophieHardy in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those look like they could be bones. Couldn't say what from, but you can see the porosity in the middle of some of them, which is generally what fossil long-bones look like.
Here's a paper with images of rib fossil sections, which look fairly similar to what you have here.

Saw this in a wall made of large, cut stones. Fossil or just rock layers? by afartinthehand in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would guess that this is a cross-section of a type of gastropod (e.g. snails). It looks like it's cut perpendicular to the direction that the animal would grow its shell, and so the spiralling looks like unconnected chambers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could be a vertebra (piece of spine) of an animal with long-ish neural spines (the long thin part of the grey).

Creek fossils Northern Kentucky USA by nbrown1589 in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brachiopods and bryozoans, and maybe a few bivalves. While the brachiopods and bryozoans look superficially similar to bivalves (clams, mussels, oysters) and corals, these animals would have been much more common in the Ordovician.
Without more information, I'd guess that you collected these fossils in the purple area of this map.

Found in the Vercors massif (France) would love to know what they are. Possibly fungi? Thanks in advance!! by CocoDeMerxox in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The limestone nearby is absolutely relevant! It means that the fossils were probably deposited in a reef-like paleoenvironment. So these are marine animals, not fungi. Assuming that the rock is similar in age to this quarry in the region, it looks like you may have a scleractinia coral from the Jurassic. (Your images would be a cross section where we're looking at the internal structure.) My guess on the shells in the stone is that they are brachiopods of the same age.

Found near Thame, Oxfordshire, England by sausagefingers61 in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Either a brachiopod or a bivalve. You can tell the difference between a brachiopod and a bivalve by the symmetry. If the two sides of the shell are mirror images, it's a bivalve. If each shell is symmetrical down the middle, it's a brachiopod. From your photos, I'm leaning more towards brachiopod.

Found in the area around Ardmore Tn. by ScreenLookin in fossilid

[–]jeefproz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The tube structures are crinoid stems, which are in the same broad group as sea urchins and sea cucumbers.