Guest Nicholas Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I've been thinking a lot about this as of late, in scientific texts and throughout the community I've heard different opinions of what a "fossil" is. There are those who are strict on mineral replacement of some kind, there are those who base fossils on age despite the lack of mineralization, then there are other groups which include relatively new extinct species as fossils despite lack of age or mineralization... I was wondering where most of the members here would categorize them themselves, opinions would be appreciated. If you have your own category unique to the ones above please share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 It would probably be easier to define what a fossil isn't, than what a fossil is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 It would probably be easier to define what a fossil isn't, than what a fossil is... Very true, I've read debates between paleontologists in the past and what you said seems to be the only thing they can agree upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 My feeling is that it has to be prehistoric; the boundaries of the other criteria are mushy. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I have an odd definition of fossils in my opinion all remains of organic materials mineralized or not older than 10,000 years is a fossil. With the exception of preserved remains of current(9,999 thousand years to now) extinct species which preserve under extraordinary circumstances... such as copal, mummification, volcanic ash casts... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 ... all remains of organic materials... Don't forget tracks! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Don't forget tracks! Oh yes, and burrows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Oh yes, and burrows! Are gastroliths fossils? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Are gastroliths fossils? You took that right out of my brain! I was thinking it after I posted. I think it is debatable and I see a case on either side. To me... it is an indirect fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkfoam Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I have always used the definition that a fossil is anything that is evidence of ancient life regardless of the form be it a cast, imprint, mold, carbon film, origional material, mineral replacement, petrifcation, etc. The only problem I ever had was with the definition of "ancient" and I have generally taken that to be around 7000-10000 years and older. If someone said, no, its 11,000 years or they said its 8700 years I think I would just smile and nod my head. JKFoam The Eocene is my favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 You took that right out of my brain! I was thinking it after I posted. I think it is debatable and I see a case on either side. To me... it is an indirect fossil. It's better than a bone in some ways: it is evidence of biology and behavior. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I have never really considered ichno-fossils as being fossils. They are cool, but for me, it has to be part of the carapace, ect., ect.,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I love 'em! Qualify them as "trace" fossils if you must; they are evidence of life, and behavior (even if you can't assign many of them to a specific taxon). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Maybe......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 For me, the most inclusive definition (for a collector, hence the "object" qualifier) is: "An object that is evidence of biological activity before the Holocene". "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFossilHunter Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I have never really considered ichno-fossils as being fossils. They are cool, but for me, it has to be part of the carapace, ect., ect.,... yes they are considered fossils and that's about all I collect these days. My understanding is that fossils are any remnant of ancient life (older than a certain age) such as bones as remnants of a dead animals and trace fossils - remnants of a living animal. Any trace of something directly linked to ancient life is a fossil. Sometimes the border between regular and trace fossil is a very thin line. For example, some consider stromatolites trace fossils, because basically what you see is not part of the creature, but sediment layers trapped by it, hence, evidence of its life activities. A fish touching the sedimant on the bottom of a lake , leaving a cavity is a fossil. Another example - if a shell, driven by the current, was rolling on the see floor, and making imprints ( external cast) I would consider that a trace fossil (not a regular fossil) even if the animal inside the shell was already dead. However, regular extermal casts of a shell that are normally found in marine sediments (even ifd the original material is missing and "footprint" of it is left)- I wouldn't consider a trace fossil, because it's an imprint of a dead animal just laying there, not part of its life activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Siphuncle Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I have a buddy whose attitude is "Just Butvar the bone and tell your friends its Pleistocene". Grüße, Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas "To the motivated go the spoils." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 yes they are considered fossils... Nope, there is no subjectivity. They are trace fossils. Check the literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 "OLD VINAC"; sounds like something that comes in fifths, cheaply... "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFossilHunter Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Nope, there is no subjectivity. They are trace fossils. Check the literature. ? well if you say they are (trace) fossils....it sort of follows that they are fossils....give me an example in literature that says that trace fossils are not fossils....it's the same as to say that mexican food is not food... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Though, I am somewhat of an antiquated beast myself, check Clarkson's "Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution" 1979, but more important for me Campbell and McFarland "personal communication" 1982. 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