Explain? Please

[Seldom]

I was at a guys house last night who is a fossil hunter collecter here in Galveston, while looking at his collection he had a lot of bones that were not fossilized but keep referring to them as fossils. I did not want to make him mad by ? him on this as he may be a lot of help to me. I have looked in some of my books and still do not understand what a true fossil is. Are bones just a few years old fossils.

Thanks Seldom

[Guest bmorefossil]

I was at a guys house last night who is a fossil hunter collecter here in Galveston, while looking at his collection he had a lot of bones that were not fossilized but keep referring to them as fossils. I did not want to make him mad by ? him on this as he may be a lot of help to me. I have looked in some of my books and still do not understand what a true fossil is. Are bones just a few years old fossils.

Thanks Seldom

if i remember in must be at least 10,000 years old

here is a site that talks a little about it:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ear...ssil_intro.html

[Xiphactinus]

Usually 10,000 years is the magic number. Sometimes people will stretch that closer to the present in the case of extinct animals, like the dodo bird.

[Auspex]

...Sometimes people will stretch that closer to the present in the case of extinct animals, like the dodo bird.

For which is the convenlently erected term "sub-fossil".

[Seldom]

Thanks great link knew it had to be more then a few 100 years.

[Guest bmorefossil]

Thanks great link knew it had to be more then a few 100 years.

hey you shouldnt let your kid smoke like that

[Seldom]

Thats my baby pic, mon was so proud

[Boesse]

The problem with 10,000 years as a cutoff date is that it basically is a 'magical' number. I.e., its a completely irrational and arbitrary cutoff point.

When it comes to preservation, one could use permineralization as a criterion. However, some bones that are only a few hundred years can by permineralized, and bones that are millions of years old might not be, and instead be in rather crappy condition. So that doesn't work.

The problem with 10,000 years is that there is no difference (aside from the age) between a bone that is 10,001 and 9,999 years old - one gets to be a fossil and the other doesn't. Why? There is nothing special with the Pleistocene, and nothing wrong with the Holocene.

So, calling all Holocene material subfossil and everything older is OK, but still completely arbitrary. Fossilization at a bare minimum is the process of skeletal material becoming naturally entombed by sediment, and calling something fossil or not should reflect that, not some arbitrary age cutoff.

So, folks like Dave Martill in England (a taphonomist like myself) use the term 'fossil' for anything that's been buried naturally by sediment (which, of course, necessarily places anthropogenically buried material in a different category). Unfortunately, while the term fossil implies an old age, it really just means 'natural burial', which can include a five year old cow bone in a three-year old stream deposit.

Bobby

[Harry Pristis]

I was at a guys house last night who is a fossil hunter collecter here in Galveston, while looking at his collection he had a lot of bones that were not fossilized but keep referring to them as fossils. I did not want to make him mad by ? him on this as he may be a lot of help to me. I have looked in some of my books and still do not understand what a true fossil is. Are bones just a few years old fossils.

Thanks Seldom

Don't confuse "mineralized" with "fossilized." You can find bones more than 10,000 years old that are NOT permineralized, that is, NOT infiltrated with minerals not originally present in bone. You would need to rely on other clues to the actual age of the bone.

EDIT: Bobby posted a more complete and thoughtful answer while I was typing this. I work with something like Bobby's definition of "fossil" in my own thinking, and have for a long time. I recommend a more expansive definition such as Bobby is suggesting.

[MikeD]

I have seen some fossil bones from the area that were not mineralized and were surprisingly light in weight.

[tracer]

bobby - love ya man. without leaving your chair you just increased my fossil collection tremendously. and i agree completely. "holocene" even sounds cooler than "pleistocene". sorta sounds like a beatnik bar where t. s. eliot would hang out.

(for those of you to whom that last humoricious morsel was too esoteric - oh well. <giggle>)

[Seldom]

Tracer you the man Yes its funny how a play with words can increases or decreases the value or importance of something. My wife owns a antique and resale shop, she can take a 5.00 table and call it vinage and sale it for 50.00. You have to love the way we use words.

Bobby

[Xiphactinus]

The problem with 10,000 years as a cutoff date is that it basically is a 'magical' number. I.e., its a completely irrational and arbitrary cutoff point.

When it comes to preservation, one could use permineralization as a criterion. However, some bones that are only a few hundred years can by permineralized, and bones that are millions of years old might not be, and instead be in rather crappy condition. So that doesn't work.

The problem with 10,000 years is that there is no difference (aside from the age) between a bone that is 10,001 and 9,999 years old - one gets to be a fossil and the other doesn't. Why? There is nothing special with the Pleistocene, and nothing wrong with the Holocene.

So, calling all Holocene material subfossil and everything older is OK, but still completely arbitrary. Fossilization at a bare minimum is the process of skeletal material becoming naturally entombed by sediment, and calling something fossil or not should reflect that, not some arbitrary age cutoff.

So, folks like Dave Martill in England (a taphonomist like myself) use the term 'fossil' for anything that's been buried naturally by sediment (which, of course, necessarily places anthropogenically buried material in a different category). Unfortunately, while the term fossil implies an old age, it really just means 'natural burial', which can include a five year old cow bone in a three-year old stream deposit.

Bobby

Bobby - I'm not buying the definition of fossil meaning anything naturally buried. In that case, the old T-bones and soup bones you can find in a creek are fossils? I don't think so. I've never seen a definition of fossil that did not have "old age" attached to it. [edit - realize I sounded snarky and didn't mean to....good definition, but I don't agree with the age part only...]

[RJB]

Hey Bobby, you purty much nailed that for me. A great and simple explination. I dnnt mean to change this thread, but here goes. Back when I used to do fossil shows, someone would always come buy with their indian artifacts of whatever kind, (arrowheads, stone pipes and such), and throw them into the 'fossil' catagory, when in fact these articles are all hand made by man. Why is it that sooo many poeple get this confused?

RB

[Harry Pristis]

Bobby - I'm not buying the definition of fossil meaning anything naturally buried. In that case, the old T-bones and soup bones you can find in a creek are fossils? I don't think so. I've never seen a definition of fossil that did not have "old age" attached to it. [edit - realize I sounded snarky and didn't mean to....good definition, but I don't agree with the age part only...]

I think that "old T-bones and soup bones" in the creek are "artifacts" in the same way that a drilled (for suspension) megalodon tooth is an artifact.

Interest in a bone is a function of the age of the bone, roughly speaking. Last year's Sus scrofa bones from the creek -- not much interest from anyone. Bison bones from the Missouri River in Montana -- moderate interest. Pleistocene camel bones -- much interest. Are they all fossils under Bobby's definition?? Technically, why not!

"Fossil" is just a word, and words have slightly different meanings for every user. I think most of us have a good working definition that serves our purposes here.

[Seldom]

From The Texas Fossils Handbook #2 The word fossil is derived from the Latin word fossilis meaning " dug up" and for many years any unusual object dug out of the ground was considered to be a fossil. For this reason some of the earlier books dealing with fossils include discussions of rocks, minerals, and other inorganic objects.

Bobby

[Frank Menser]

I think throwing an age at something to determine whether it's a fossil just doesn't make sense. To my way of thinking, a fossil is either the remains partially, or entirely replaced by mineralisation, (example- Ammonites) or the preserved cast, or the trace (tracks etc).

I have a reminder in my collection of how new fossils can be. I collected from a construction site where the run off had made mud deposits. A large bird walked through a few of them and later the hot sun baked the mud into a rock hardness preserving the tracks. This is the same process that in nature forms trace fosils on river beds-just much faster.

The lava ash casts of Pompeii IMO should be considered fossils.

On a slightly different tack, I read about a man collected barite crystals (desert roses) at the same place time after time when he was certain he had collected them all. Trying to find out why, he took some soil home and sprayed it with his garden hose. The next morning he found newly formed roses. I think this illustrates how quickly Nature can act.

[Harry Pristis]

I think throwing an age at something to determine whether it's a fossil just doesn't make sense. To my way of thinking, a fossil is either the remains partially, or entirely replaced by mineralisation, (example- Ammonites) or the preserved cast, or the trace (tracks etc).

I have a reminder in my collection of how new fossils can be. I collected from a construction site where the run off had made mud deposits. A large bird walked through a few of them and later the hot sun baked the mud into a rock hardness preserving the tracks. This is the same process that in nature forms trace fosils on river beds-just much faster.

The lava ash casts of Pompeii IMO should be considered fossils.

On a slightly different tack, I read about a man collected barite crystals (desert roses) at the same place time after time when he was certain he had collected them all. Trying to find out why, he took some soil home and sprayed it with his garden hose. The next morning he found newly formed roses. I think this illustrates how quickly Nature can act.

What then would you consider the 5,000 year-old "iceman" frozen in the Alps? What about mammoths frozen in the permafrost of Siberia? Mineralization is but one means of preservation.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

^^ ... or half billion year old original material.

[Frank Menser]

quote name='Harry Pristis' date='Feb 20 2009, 07:25 PM' post='55603']

What then would you consider the 5,000 year-old "iceman" frozen in the Alps? What about mammoths frozen in the permafrost of Siberia? Mineralization is but one means of preservation.

Frankly, I think of fossilisation as a Geological--not a Calender event. Otherwise the chops I thawed for dinner last night were certainly a fossil The mammoths you refer to are still in eatable condition (the meat has fed to sled dogs on occasion). There is no breakdown of the orrigional material and replacement, which is definative.

It is hard to draw a line as to when something becomes a fossil. There are degrees of preservation, for example; I have found Petrified wood that still had fragments of the orrigional wood embedded in it.

This fish skull (below) is only slightly mineralised which offers an arguement as to how much mineralisation is necessary to determine if it actually has become a fossil. I tend to agree with the match test. if you can smell meat burning, it is proof the protiens are still present and fossilisation is not advanced enough to credit this piece as completely being one.

This 10,000 year old (est age) skull has a braincase that has completely been replaced by rock making a cast of it. The bone has some mineralisation, but was in the process of disintigration (except the teeth) when the process was interupted by its discovery. The brain cast--no doubt is a fossil. The remaining associated bone and teeth IMO can be considered a fossil as well.

If you found the skull with flesh intact and frozen, I would offer it as a dinner treat on the next INDIANA JONES movie, but I would not call it a fossil.

[

[tracer]

actually, for me the issue is muchy sinpler. it depends on who finds the thing. if it looks old, and i find it, it's a fossil. if it looks old, and you find it, then whether it's a fossil or not depends on what i think of it when you show it to me.

th8is is anlago us to drving down the road. anybody going faster than me is a maniac and anyone going slower than me is an idiot. but it depends on who's in the car with me and what they think too. because if they say something like, "my, but the flow of traffic is rapid today!", then a lot of the idiots turn into maniacs. etc.

[Seldom]

actually, for me the issue is muchy sinpler. it depends on who finds the thing. if it looks old, and i find it, it's a fossil. if it looks old, and you find it, then whether it's a fossil or not depends on what i think of it when you show it to me.

I like the way you think Tracer, am going to move the old coke bottle I found last week into the fossil room, right now today or maybe later need more coffee will think on that move