Fossils B/C

[GoofyFoofer]

Anyone know any good starting websites?

I like to use http://www.fossilguy.com/.

[GoofyFoofer]

Does anybody have any tips for preparing the field guide?
Thanks!

[TalGypCal]

Does anyone know if SciOly is going to be distinguishing Eldredgeops from Phacops? As I understand it, if they do, the localities for Phacops would then be much more limited, as generally speaking Phacops is recognized as being very abundant in both Europe and North America, but Struve (1990) restricts Phacops to North Africa and the Middle East. I'm not really sure if this would make a big difference or not (first time competing in fossils-- rocks was my thing before), but I'd still like some clarification. Reassurance that that sort of question would never show up would also be great, though that sort of prediction is hard to make. Thanks!

[TalGypCal]

...I devoted a not-so-small part of my life to making the Fossils binder, and we used one page per specimen, with a sort of appendix at the back with other pertinent information.

So I've been looking through some of the older fossil forums as well, and other people also mention a kind of standard (with some exceptions of course) of generally having one page per specimen--I'm having a really tough time finding that much information for some of them. For example, Rhombopora's information (that I have found so far) is essentially limited to environment, span, and classification. And while I understand that for some fossils, looking through various fossil books might provide an even better overview that whatever you can pick up over the internet, a lot of books don't have a lot of information on certain fossils. When you say "one page" does this include pictures and general anatomy (like general bryozoa stuff, going with my previous example) or am I just doing a super sucky job of finding things? Thanks a bunch

[ceg7654]

Audubon Fossil Guide VS. Smithsonian Fossil Handbook: which one is better? Or should I get both.....

[GoofyFoofer]

Smithsonian as the field guide, I would recommend. It's more organized.
However, Audubon has more info on invertabrates, but it's not that greatly organized, so it's better for just finding info for your binder.
Hope this helps!

[John Richardsim]

Audubon Fossil Guide VS. Smithsonian Fossil Handbook: which one is better? Or should I get both.....

One thing I noticed last year for Rocks and Minerals, is that the Smithsonian had pretty good organization while the Audubon has a rather strange organization. The Smithsonian contained a couple small, quick to read paragraphs per entry (which were conveniently short during competition), while in the Audubon you have to go digging for information in really long paragraphs spanning over several pages. Despite of this, the Audubon contains a ton of useful information, and is also the recommended resource, while the information in the Smithsonian didn't always seem complete.

In conclusion, I don't know how similar both of their fossil guides are from their rocks and minerals guides, but I would recommend using the Audubon for creating a binder and taking the Smithsonian into competition.

Edit: yeah pretty much what GoofyFoofer said.

[GoofyFoofer]

Yeah, I think that could have been a reason I only medaled once in R&M last year, having the rather unorganized Audubon field guide (or I just didn't study enough ).

[GoofyFoofer]

Does anybody have any tips for preparing the field guide?
Thanks!

[NoL617]

Does anybody have any tips for preparing the field guide?
Thanks!

I did Entomology with a field guide, and it helped a lot to tab the pages (if you are allowed). Give basic information on the tab for what it is. Also, look around the field guide and learn your way around it. It'll help a lot at the competitions.