Identification via flow chart?

[FranzBernhard]

Especially inspired by this object:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/96343-stone-found-on-beach-in-wales/

but also many others posted in the ID section, I would like to discuss the possibility of construction of a flow chart for "object identification". 

But I don´t know, if this would make any sense or if it could be helpful. Both for the more experienced ID people or for the unexperienced ID people.

It don´t need to be detailed, some "end points" I am thinking of are (of course, it can be deepened endlessly!):

Artifact (modern, native American, etc.)

Fossil (mollusc, tooth, Dino bone, mammal bone etc.)

Rock (limestone, granite, schist etc.

Concretion (siderite, pyrite, calcite etc...)

Mineral (Calcite, Quartz, others etc.)

It would be a long and extensive work. But my interest is more general: Is it even possible and does it make sense?

Franz Bernhard

[Manticocerasman]

30 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

Especially inspired by this object:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/96343-stone-found-on-beach-in-wales/

but also many others posted in the ID section, I would like to discuss the possibility of construction of a flow chart for "object identification". 

But I don´t know, if this would make any sense or if it could be helpful. Both for the more experienced ID people or for the unexperienced ID people.

It don´t need to be detailed, some "end points" I am thinking of are (of course, it can be deepened endlessly!):

Artifact (modern, native American, etc.)

Fossil (mollusc, tooth, Dino bone, mammal bone etc.)

Rock (limestone, granite, schist etc.

Concretion (siderite, pyrite, calcite etc...)

Mineral (Calcite, Quartz, others etc.)

It would be a long and extensive work. But my interest is more general: Is it even possible and does it make sense?

Franz Bernhard

I think this would become very big flowcharts. mabey try to narrow it down per location? it depends on how complex you want to make those.

 

 

[Ludwigia]

Sounds kinda complicated. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the beginners looking for id wouldn't have a clue as to how to use it. Many of them can't even be bothered to read or follow our simple instructions.

[doushantuo]

Not too bad an idea,F!!

input factors could be

{stratigraphy}

{systematic affinity of the fossil you are looking for)

{facies/diagenesis}

{paleogeography}

{ecology}

{Transportation/autochthony factor}

{previous collection experiences}

{outcrop situation}

(rarefaction factor}

{stability of taxonomy}

ending in a 

factor expressing the likelihood of

-finding a taxon

or finding a wellpreserved taxon

[Manticocerasman]

on the dutch website Fossiel.net you can download a simple chart for kids for fossils that you can find in our area:

I like the indication on symetrical differences between brachiopods and bivalves on this chart.

 

 

https://www.fossiel.net/system/images/zoekkaart/Zoekkaart fossielenontdekgids def.pdf

 

 

[doushantuo]

I'll have shark teeth,please,with a dollop of brachiopod

[FranzBernhard]

7 hours ago, Manticocerasman said:

I think this would become very big flowcharts.

Yes, indeed! But how about sticking with a few catagories, higher up in the hierarchy, at first?

 

7 hours ago, Ludwigia said:

Many of them can't even be bothered to read or follow our simple instructions.

Yes, correct! But my interest is more basic. How do experienced people decide, what is what? Its more about human pattern recognition + possibly some hard facts. Can this be somewhat formalized? (oh yes, hoards of programmers are working on this problem.).

 

6 hours ago, doushantuo said:

input factors could be

Yes, lot of factors!

But at the moment I am more interested in categories higher up in the hierarchy of things: Is it a

Fossil?

Rock?

Mineral?

Artifact?

Slag?

etc...

How do we distinguish this simple categories from a pic (+ a few hard facts, if any). Pattern recogniton, of course .

 

Thanks for all your input!
Franz Bernhard

 

[FossilNerd]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:50 AM, FranzBernhard said:

Especially inspired by this object:

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/96343-stone-found-on-beach-in-wales/

but also many others posted in the ID section, I would like to discuss the possibility of construction of a flow chart for "object identification". 

But I don´t know, if this would make any sense or if it could be helpful. Both for the more experienced ID people or for the unexperienced ID people.

It don´t need to be detailed, some "end points" I am thinking of are (of course, it can be deepened endlessly!):

Artifact (modern, native American, etc.)

Fossil (mollusc, tooth, Dino bone, mammal bone etc.)

Rock (limestone, granite, schist etc.

Concretion (siderite, pyrite, calcite etc...)

Mineral (Calcite, Quartz, others etc.)

It would be a long and extensive work. But my interest is more general: Is it even possible and does it make sense?

Franz Bernhard

I think it would be possible to give some sort of general idea of things to look at for recognition of some of these things, but it would be labor intensive as you said. 

 

Some things may be easier for people to understand than others, such as things that still have modern extant equivalents. For example... How do you recognize a modern shark tooth versus a fossilized one? So if someone found it laying on the beach how would they know if it is a fossil or not? Maybe could do generalized comparisons? So a flow chart that was similar to “If a certain part of the tooth looks like this it’s a fossil, but if it looks like that it’s modern”

You could definitely get more detailed, but for the layperson I  think you would want to keep things simple and making comparisons would be easier to understand. Of course not everything has something modern to compare to... 

 

As a disclaimer, I know very little about shark teeth. Fossil or modern. Just not in my wheelhouse. So if my thinking on that is wrong don’t shoot me! Just something that I know a lot of people pick up and want to know if it’s a fossil or not. And it was the first thing that popped into my head as having a modern comparison.