Oxytropidoceras Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 Garde, A.A., Søndergaard, A.S., Guvad, C., Dahl-Møller, J., Nehrke, G., Sanei, H., Weikusat, C., Funder, S., Kjær, K.H. and Larsen, N.K., 2020. Pleistocene organic matter modified by the Hiawatha impact, northwest Greenland. Geology, 48(9), pp.867-871. open access paper Supplemental Material: Pleistocene organic matter modified by the Hiawatha impact, northwest Greenland Yours, Paul H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 (edited) Thanks for the article. Sub fossil is a misleading term. All the material studied from the impact are fossils even if they are not mineralized because they are old enough: “late Pliocene to early Pleistocene age of ca. 3–2.4 Ma.” I thought that I was going to read an article about an impact that occurred less than 10k years ago. A lot of workers suggest to mention the age of the remains (2.4 to 3 million years old) as the best way to side step the confusion surrounding the definition of sub fossil. Here is an interesting comment about sub fossils from Steven McQuinn: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-fossil-and-a-subfossil?top_ans=84515745 Edited April 10, 2021 by DPS Ammonite My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now