An Honest Question: Why are Fossils in Matrix so Popular?

[Rock Hound]

I'm curious.  Why are Fossils in Matrix, so Popular?

 

Is it the impression that they are "as found", and somehow more genuine?

 

Inquiring minds, want to know.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Kane
Unnecessary comma

[Kane]

Bit of a generalization. I guess it comes down to preference or conditions. Many shark teeth in NC, for example, will not be in matrix. Not sure what your question is truly asking as it cannot be generalized across all fossil specimens.

[siteseer]

7 minutes ago, Rock Hound said:

I'm curious.  Why are Fossils in Matrix, so Popular?

 

Is it the impression that they are "as found", and somehow more genuine?

 

Inquiring minds, want to know.

 

It depends on the person.  Some people prefer to have their specimens loose - easier to store.  They can make for a nice display depending on the color of the rock and it's possible you might have other fossils in the same chunk.   It can be nice to show the fossil in its matrix so others recognize the rock in the field.  

[DPS Ammonite]

Partly for aesthetic reasons: If it looks nice in matrix why tempt Murphy and try to prep it out. Three nicely placed really common Composita brachiopods on matrix just look better than three loose ones.

 

Scientific/practical reasons: I have more room for a label without placing it on the fossil. It is nice to see the associated fossils. Seeing the matrix helps to establish that you got the formation info correct.

 

For outreach/educational purposes: Fossils on matrix area better to pass around and are less likely to be lost.

Edited July 1, 2022 by DPS Ammonite

[Top Trilo]

I agree with above, its a personal preference and many people prefer fossils without matrix and for many people it comes down to what kind of fossil. For example, I like having trilobites with matrix but for most dinosaur teeth I'd prefer no matrix. Matrix frames a fossil the same away a picture frame would frame a picture.

[Kane]

Well, like I said, some fossils do not occur in matrix, and our Florida hunters can attest to that. It is far too generic a question.

[MeargleSchmeargl]

For a lot of the fossils you'd find embedded in matrix, a lot of the appeal (at least to me) is that remaining in the matrix provides the fossil with context as far as the world the organism lived in, especially if said matrix contains other fossils in it as well. It makes it so that you not only have the remains of the organism itself, you also have what is effectively a snapshot of the environment in which the organism was deposited. It is quite literally the very ground/seafloor the organism came to rest on.

Edited July 1, 2022 by MeargleSchmeargl

[Misha]

I agree with @MeargleSchmeargl a lot,

I really like seeing the fossils in their natural context, especially if there are multiple on the same block, tells you more about their ecology, relationships to others, and often can offer a nice way to display the specimen.

Additionally, and this kind of reflects what @Kane was saying, many of my fossils just could not be displayed without matrix, they are too thin, disarticulated or something else and the matrix keeps them together and gives them the strength needed to be displayable. So some fossils you often don't have matrix for while others you cannot have them without matrix 

[Rock Hound]

3 hours ago, Kane said:

Bit of a generalization. I guess it comes down to preference or conditions. Many shark teeth in NC, for example, will not be in matrix. Not sure what your question is truly asking as it cannot be generalized across all fossil specimens.

Sorry, I didn't intend to over-generalize.  I have seen quite a few different fossils offered for sale, in surrounding Matrix.  Some look quite nice, displayed that way.  I thought I detected, that some people actually prefer to collect fossils in matrix?

[DPS Ammonite]

2 minutes ago, Rock Hound said:

I thought I detected, that some people actually prefer to collect fossils in matrix?

We collect whatever looks nice and nature gives us: matrix or no matrix. I sometimes take home matrix pieces that, as is, are not keepers, but have promise if prepped. 

[JBkansas]

For example this prep from @Raistlin, the matrix holding together the little microcosm of the seabed is what makes it an impressive fossil.

Edited July 1, 2022 by JBkansas

[Rock Hound]

1 hour ago, JBkansas said:

For example this prep from @Raistlin, the matrix holding together the little microcosm of the seabed is what makes it an impressive fossil.

That is a nice specimen, there.  The Crinoid imprints, etc I find in riverbed gravel, are sometimes in groups and interesting; but they are never on that level.  Lots of interesting material in that piece.  Thanks for sharing.

[FranzBernhard]

5 hours ago, MeargleSchmeargl said:

It is quite literally the very ground/seafloor the organism came to rest on.

That´s the important thing. Everything else is often a little bit more tricky to decipher .

 

Its aesthetics and context, why I prefer fossils in/on matrix. Very often, a site will yield both. So generally, no need to remove a fossil from the matrix to produce a matrix-free fossil. Except maybe for taxonomic purposes.

 

Franz Bernhard

Edited July 1, 2022 by FranzBernhard

[Ludwigia]

The piece that JBkansas showed us is a so-called hash plate. These are the type of matrix pieces that are best left as is, since removing all of the little bits would really be a mess and would actually ruin it.

[Kane]

8 hours ago, Rock Hound said:

 I thought I detected, that some people actually prefer to collect fossils in matrix?

I can speak of trilobites (of course), and my preference is to have less matrix whereas others like more. It sometimes comes down to a matter of space. As my wife would attest, my collection takes up far too much room everywhere, so paring down the matrix allows me to fit more fossils in an area.  For my purposes, I like to keep the main specimen squared and centered on the matrix for balance and aesthetics. If it is a multi-plate, obviously the calculus is different. In the field, I like to use the rock saw to trim the fossil down as much as I can, partly because lugging around extra weight all day is not terribly fun.  

 

The other consideration not related directly to the significance of the fossil is... shipping. If you are buying or selling fossils, part of that shipping cost comes down to weight and size, so extraneous matrix is more costly to ship. 

 

One benefit in having additional matrix beyond having a "slice of the sea floor" (in the case of marine fossils) is the possibility of surprise. On occasion, some of the pieces I bring home will reveal other specimens that were buried, and that my prep reveals. I find that "value-added" aspect one of the joys of collecting, as it is like extending the collecting trip in a way, and it feels like it's your birthday.  

[Kane]

One other note about matrix is what is done to it in the process of preparation. Some prefer the natural look, while others prefer some landscaping. The latter is usually done either because the natural matrix would detract from the main specimen, and/or there is not much else to see. In the case of a lot of Devonian trilobites from Morocco, for example, you might notice that the matrix is ground and planed or smoothed in some way (the worst in my view is the spider web look of scribe marks, which sometimes is done to conceal some shenanigans). Ditto for a lot of Russian trilobites (my preference has been to adopt the stippling technique). Another reason matrix-scaping is done is to remove unsightly tool marks. In other cases, some preparators will opt for the "bowl" look where the specimen appears as if in the bottom of a shallow bowl. I'm not terribly fond of that approach and prefer levelling the matrix, but everyone has their preference. 

[digit]

The one example I can think of that stands out in my mind is shark teeth from the Shark Tooth Hill locality. Many of the larger Isurus planus teeth from there make great specimens. Quite often the roots of these shark teeth are not well preserved and only the blades are found. When digging at the site and part of the blade of a nice tooth became visible it was recommended to try to keep the tooth encased in the sandstone matrix to help preserve the root till it could be taken home and carefully extracted and the root consolidated to strengthen it. Several of these teeth in matrix I simply prepped out to expose the tooth without removing it completely from the matrix. The sandstone matrix provided a nice background to the tooth and allowed it to be displayed nicer. Old trip report for reference:

 

 

I think a shark tooth on matrix adds to the concept that it is a fossilized tooth and not a modern shark tooth when someone sees it in your display cabinet. I think this association with the matrix in which the fossil was found strengthens the concept that the featured items are fossils still in their geologic settings and that may be part of the popularity of fossils in matrix.

 

The other example that now comes to mind is a trip we made to Delta, UT to dig for trilobites in the Cambrian Wheeler Shale (primarily for Elrathia kingii). At the pay dig site we would hunt the slabs of shale for exposed trilobites. Often they would be found upside down (from the ventral side) and could be seen in outline. We learned that these could be collected by placing the rock chisel near the trilobite and smacking it with the hammer. This would usually pop the bug from the matrix so it could be viewed from the normal dorsal display side. I have a whole bowl of these loose trilobites that were collected using this popping method. The nicer specimens are basically free of matrix (after a little bit of clean-up prepping) and would be ideal for using as jewelry pendants in a fossil necklace. The ones that were found with the dorsal (display) side up were all collected in matrix and not removed from their "home" for the last half billion years.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Troodon]

I enjoy collecting matrix pieces, some for aesthetic reasons, or it can be a nice assemblage of bones or teeth, may tell a story or help in identification.   On very hard matrix it can also reduce the risk of damage to fragile thin jurassic theropod teeth.   So no one reason and really nothing to do about it being more genuine.  Every specimen is different.

 

For example this pair of tyrannosaurid teeth from the Judith points to an association and gives info on the deposit its in.  

 

 

The matrix here also supports its an Abelisaurid tooth from Maastrichtian deposits of Morocco and not of older Kem Kem deposits

 

 

 

 

[Mark Kmiecik]

Some fossils cannot be removed from the matrix, for instance impressions. Some are too fragile to even attempt removal and the matrix acts as a binding agent.

[Fin Lover]

11 hours ago, digit said:

I think a shark tooth on matrix adds to the concept that it is a fossilized tooth and not a modern shark tooth when someone sees it in your display cabinet. I think this association with the matrix in which the fossil was found strengthens the concept that the featured items are fossils still in their geologic settings and that may be part of the popularity of fossils in matrix.

I agree. Prior to October, I had never searched for shark's teeth or other fossils. Science is not a subject I enjoyed in school and that is very evident by my lack of knowledge and understanding. Finding a tooth in matrix definitely impacted me more than just finding loose teeth on the beach.  It was visual confirmation that these teeth really are extremely old.

[Rock Hound]

This is turning into a really good thread!!!  Thanks to all who have contributed.  I thought I detected that some people Really enjoy seeing fossils in surrounding matrix.  Now I get to read why they enjoy it so much.

[Rock Hound]

23 hours ago, Troodon said:

I enjoy collecting matrix pieces, some for aesthetic reasons, or it can be a nice assemblage of bones or teeth, may tell a story or help in identification.   On very hard matrix it can also reduce the risk of damage to fragile thin jurassic theropod teeth.   So no one reason and really nothing to do about it being more genuine.  Every specimen is different.

 

For example this pair of tyrannosaurid teeth from the Judith points to an association and gives info on the deposit its in.  

 

 

The matrix here also supports its an Abelisaurid tooth from Maastrichtian deposits of Morocco and not of older Kem Kem deposits

 

 

 

 

My own personal preference would be teeth which were free of matrix, but I can see where those you have make some really cool displays.  Thanks for sharing.

[Denis Arcand]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:40 PM, Misha said:

I agree with @MeargleSchmeargl a lot,

I really like seeing the fossils in their natural context, especially if there are multiple on the same block, tells you more about their ecology, relationships to others, and often can offer a nice way to display the specimen.

I agree, when I see fossils on their own, I feel something is missing, I like to see them as they were found in their context

 

Going further, I also like to see photos of fossils in the environment where they were found, it makes us dream while having the feeling of being there with the fossil hunter, of course, we can only do that only in pictures. It would be ridiculous to try to bring the complete environment home, only museums have the resources to build an excavation environment for display purposes

 

To understand what I mean, just look at the image in my two articles by clicking on the following links:

The day I went fishing for fossils (part I)

The day I went fishing for fossils (part II)

 

For example Brachiopod matrix in its natural context and as found

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Denis Arcand

[snolly50]

Here is an old prep series. Tons of matrix was worried away. Why? Simply to obtain the desired aesthetic. The piece could have been left alone (as it had been for generations). In that state it displayed nicely and, I believe was a worthy addition to any collection. However, I envisioned a different "look." The matrix was removed/remained by my eccentric concept of how I envisioned the final display. As with any personal bias, your mileage may vary.

 

 

 

[joaoarguello3]

hahahaha it's funny, my wife asks me something similar yesterday. I think it's a matter of personal taste, but I think the matrix gives it a little more "realism" since it seems that the animal is in its natural environment, after all where the fossil rests is part of the ecosystem where it lived