Finis Shale, a New Type of Lagerstätte

[BobWill]

A new type  has been added to the two lagerstätten used now.  A "conservation lagerstätte" features exceptional preservation without much diversity and a "concentration lagerstätte" has extraordinary diversity without notable preservation quality. To recognize sites that have very good but maybe not exceptional preservation as well as a level of diversity that exceeds the conservation type we now can call some sites a "liberation lagerstätte."

 

Anyone like myself with an interest in the Finis Shale member of the Graham Formation found in Jack County Texas will not be surprised to hear it is being recognized as special.  Another formation in Texas as well as some in the deep south of the U.S. and others abroad are included in the list from the article presented at the 11th North American Paleontological Convention this June.

 

Roden et al2019 NAPC.pdf

 

 

[Wrangellian]

No.. I for one and not surprised that the Finis qualifies as a lagerstatte of some sort!

I guess the Whiskey Bridge site also qualifies as that type?

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

Thanks for sharing! That's really interesting  

 

Quote

Examples of liberation lagerstätten are the [...], and the Cretaceous White Chalk of Rügen

 

Meaning that the site I work on (Møns Klint) can also be considered a liberation lagerstätten  It has the same faunal content, lithology and preservation quality as the Rügen Chalk... Good to know  

 

-Christian

[BobWill]

7 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

No.. I for one and not surprised that the Finis qualifies as a lagerstatte of some sort!

I guess the Whiskey Bridge site also qualifies as that type?

I guess we have to wait for the paper to see how they purpose deciding which sites make the cut. I take it the list in the pdf note is partial but the only other Texas site mentioned is the Word Formation. It's a Permian site near the Big Bend area.

[Jeffrey P]

Jacksboro- an wonderful exposure of the Finis Shale that you helped show me has it all- extraordinary abundance of life forms, diversity, and the preservation in my judgment is quite good. I haven't seen any other marine Pennsylvanian material that is better. Call it what you will. It is truly a remarkable site!!!

[FossilDAWG]

Conservation lagerstätten: exceptional preservation, "low diversity" (but what about the Burgess shale?  Diversity is pretty high there and preservation is incredible.

Concentration lagerstätten: often poor preservation but high diversity

Liberation lagerstätten: good (but not exceptional, i.e. no soft tissue) preservation, high diversity, "easily extracted"

 

So what is left that isn't a lagerstätten?  The Verulam Formation?  It has very high diversity but you often have to do some prepping to clean things up.  Why is this so different from, say, the Owl Creek Formation, which contains a similar number of species but cleans up with a toothbrush?

 

If everything is a lagerstätten, then the term isn't very useful.

 

Sorry to be so negative but this strikes me as someone trying to score a publication by inventing a new way to stretch a useful term (lagerstätten) to cover anything and everything.

 

Don

[Mark Kmiecik]

So what do they call sites like Mazon Creek (Francis Creek Shale) where the preservation quality is amazing and the diversity staggers the imagination? Wait, there's no word in any language for that, is there? 

[jpc]

52 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

Conservation lagerstätten: exceptional preservation, "low diversity" (but what about the Burgess shale?  Diversity is pretty high there and preservation is incredible.

Concentration lagerstätten: often poor preservation but high diversity

Liberation lagerstätten: good (but not exceptional, i.e. no soft tissue) preservation, high diversity, "easily extracted"

 

So what is left that isn't a lagerstätten?  The Verulam Formation?  It has very high diversity but you often have to do some prepping to clean things up.  Why is this so different from, say, the Owl Creek Formation, which contains a similar number of species but cleans up with a toothbrush?

 

If everything is a lagerstätten, then the term isn't very useful.

 

Sorry to be so negative but this strikes me as someone trying to score a publication by inventing a new way to stretch a useful term (lagerstätten) to cover anything and everything.

 

Don

I agree.  I think the term is being seriously overused.  

 

[BobWill]

 

 

 

2 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

Conservation lagerstätten: exceptional preservation, "low diversity" (but what about the Burgess shale?  Diversity is pretty high there and preservation is incredible.

Concentration lagerstätten: often poor preservation but high diversity

Liberation lagerstätten: good (but not exceptional, i.e. no soft tissue) preservation, high diversity, "easily extracted"

 

So what is left that isn't a lagerstätten?  The Verulam Formation?  It has very high diversity but you often have to do some prepping to clean things up.  Why is this so different from, say, the Owl Creek Formation, which contains a similar number of species but cleans up with a toothbrush?

 

If everything is a lagerstätten, then the term isn't very useful.

 

Sorry to be so negative but this strikes me as someone trying to score a publication by inventing a new way to stretch a useful term (lagerstätten) to cover anything and everything.

 

Don

 

Actually Owl Creek is mentioned in the article as included in the new type. Wikipedia lists Mazon Creek and the Burgess Shale as examples of conservation lagerstäteen as well as many others. I don't know who gets to decide or how strict the criteria are for any designation but I will wait for the paper to decide if this is worthwhile.  I can certainly see a place for some way to recognize sites that are exceptional for any reason. Maybe there is a way to assign a pair of sliding ratings that tell us both how good the preservation is and how diverse the fossils at the site are. This information may be useful to some and not so much for others but it does tell us something.

[Auspex]

2 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

strikes me as someone trying to score a publication

If you name it, they will come.

 

Gratuitous scientific terminology, if unused, quickly falls into obscurity,

[FossilDAWG]

3 minutes ago, BobWill said:

 

 

 

 

Actually Owl Creek is mentioned in the article as included in the new type. Wikipedia lists Mazon Creek and the Burgess Shale as examples of conservation lagerstäteen as well as many others. I don't know who gets to decide or how strict the criteria are for any designation but I will wait for the paper to decide if this is worthwhile.  I can certainly see a place for some way to recognize sites that are exceptional for any reason. Maybe there is a way to assign a pair of sliding ratings that tell us both how good the preservation is and how diverse the fossils at the site are. This information may be useful to some and not so much for others but it does tell us something.

I saw that the Owl Creek was mentioned, which is why I used it for my comparison.  Diversity is similarly high in the Owl Creek and the Verulam, but because prepping Owl Creek specimens is easy it deserves to be called a lagerstätten and because it takes some time with an air abrasive to prep out Verulam fossils it isn't a lagerstätten?  It seems like a trivial distinction to me.

 

There are many formations that preserve a high diversity of fossils.  We usually call these formations "highly fossiliferous", as opposed to "sparsely fossiliferous" for other formations, and that generally works to my mind.  Admittedly there are formations that are highly fossiliferous but not diverse.

 

I know this will make me come across as "old school" but it seems to me the term lagerstätten is useful when it is applied to those exceptional formations or fossil beds that display an exceptional degree of preservation, more specifically preservation of soft tissues.  Extending it to include every formation that has a diverse fauna or flora dilutes it to the point of uselessness, and further stretching it to try to separate unconsolidated or easily extracted sediments from hard rock is silly.  IMHO

 

Don

[Mark Kmiecik]

19 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

I saw that the Owl Creek was mentioned, which is why I used it for my comparison.  Diversity is similarly high in the Owl Creek and the Verulam, but because prepping Owl Creek specimens is easy it deserves to be called a lagerstätten and because it takes some time with an air abrasive to prep out Verulam fossils it isn't a lagerstätten?  It seems like a trivial distinction to me.

 

There are many formations that preserve a high diversity of fossils.  We usually call these formations "highly fossiliferous", as opposed to "sparsely fossiliferous" for other formations, and that generally works to my mind.  Admittedly there are formations that are highly fossiliferous but not diverse.

 

I know this will make me come across as "old school" but it seems to me the term lagerstätten is useful when it is applied to those exceptional formations or fossil beds that display an exceptional degree of preservation, more specifically preservation of soft tissues.  Extending it to include every formation that has a diverse fauna or flora dilutes it to the point of uselessness, and further stretching it to try to separate unconsolidated or easily extracted sediments from hard rock is silly.  IMHO

 

Don

Old school is how things started and sometimes should remain that way forever. New and improved Stradivarius violin? That's not likely to happen. If something sets itself apart from the ordinary it should be noted and acclaimed as such. Back in the day there were less than six lagerstatten and that's how it should stay. If there's dozens of them they're not special.

[connorp]

This part confuses me:

"A 'conservation lagerstätte features exceptional preservation without much diversity...."

What are they talking about? Sure, maybe not all conservation lagerstätten have exceptionally high diversity. But a lot do. Maotianshan Shales, Fezouata Formation, Burgess Shale, Yixian Formation, Mazon Creek, Green River Formation, Solnhofen, and many more all have a great amount of diversity.

 

If you exclude that part of the definition, then a "liberation lagerstätte" is simply a poorly preserved conservation lagerstätte. And isn't most every site, in essence, a poorly preserved lagerstätte?

[jpc]

I just read the abstracft... so it seems the Lance and Hell Creek Fms would be liberation lagerstatte.  But only the microsites.  

 

Still not a fan.

 

[BobWill]

These are all good points. It suggests there could be a better way to make distinctions between these two aspects or maybe even others so we can speak about them with everyone on the same page. My idea of a sliding scale might work. Maybe a rating from 1 to 10 for preservation and/or ease of preperation, another for diversity and a third for quantity. It wouldn't necessarily mean one site should be considered better overall than another depending on which thing you are interested in for whatever reason. It could be more of a descriptive that would make a lot of information instantly available once people are accustomed to using it.

[DPS Ammonite]

19 minutes ago, BobWill said:

These are all good points. It suggests there could be a better way to make distinctions between these two aspects or maybe even others so we can speak about them with everyone on the same page. My idea of a sliding scale might work. Maybe a rating from 1 to 10 for preservation and/or ease of preperation, another for diversity and a third for quantity. It wouldn't necessarily mean one site should be considered better overall than another depending on which thing you are interested in for whatever reason. It could be more of a descriptive that would make a lot of information instantly available once people are accustomed to using it.

Show me a lagerstatte's fossils rather than give me a lagerstatte's numerical description. I would rather see a well researched and illustrated publicly available paper about a lagerstatte.

[Auspex]

I have to wonder how many times this paper will be cited in the literature. What does it do to advance the science?

[connorp]

1 hour ago, BobWill said:

These are all good points. It suggests there could be a better way to make distinctions between these two aspects or maybe even others so we can speak about them with everyone on the same page. My idea of a sliding scale might work. Maybe a rating from 1 to 10 for preservation and/or ease of preperation, another for diversity and a third for quantity. It wouldn't necessarily mean one site should be considered better overall than another depending on which thing you are interested in for whatever reason. It could be more of a descriptive that would make a lot of information instantly available once people are accustomed to using it.

How would that work though? A numerical assignment would be extraordinarily subjective. And calling something a 1.1 lagerstätte seems like a fancy and confusing way of saying “poor preservation overall,” which kind of defeats the point of the term. I really think the term should only be used for sites with soft bodied preservation. It’s what I think most people envision when they hear the word, and calling anything else by the same name is just confusing to readers.

[BobWill]

2 hours ago, connorp said:

How would that work though? A numerical assignment would be extraordinarily subjective. And calling something a 1.1 lagerstätte seems like a fancy and confusing way of saying “poor preservation overall,” which kind of defeats the point of the term. I really think the term should only be used for sites with soft bodied preservation. It’s what I think most people envision when they hear the word, and calling anything else by the same name is just confusing to readers.

I agree with that but it would be no more subjective than the current use of the term. Who decides what is on the current list? Who decided it was important enough to add the second usage of lagerstätte for "concentration" sites? I'm not suggesting calling anything a lagerstätte at all just assigning something to offer a "relative" comparison of sites so we have a more complete idea of what to expect if we are deciding where to look for particular fossil assemblages. That is done for many things in science, categories of storms and earthquakes for example. I could even see limiting the original word to sites that are even more unique than all of the ones on the wiki list. I am not defending the paper in any way. I just thought people might like to know about it. My suggestion was meant to be a completely separate idea, not to build on the subject of the paper.

[connorp]

40 minutes ago, BobWill said:

I agree with that but it would be no more subjective than the current use of the term. Who decides what is on the current list? Who decided it was important enough to add the second usage of lagerstätte for "concentration" sites? I'm not suggesting calling anything a lagerstätte at all just assigning something to offer a "relative" comparison of sites so we have a more complete idea of what to expect if we are deciding where to look for particular fossil assemblages. That is done for many things in science, categories of storms and earthquakes for example. I could even see limiting the original word to sites that are even more unique than all of the ones on the wiki list. I am not defending the paper in any way. I just thought people might like to know about it. My suggestion was meant to be a completely separate idea, not to build on the subject of the paper.

Ah I see what you mean. A scale separate from solely the lagerstätten concept would be interesting. Diversity is easy to quantify in terms of species richness, but actually quantifying preservation quality would be tough. Perhaps something like

 

species richness  *  % of fossils which are taxonomically assignable   *  some value which quantifies the detail preserved.

 

The second term would be easy to estimate with random sampling throughout a section. The third term is really the only subjective one. It would have to assign higher values for locales with soft tissue preservation, but I’m not sure where’d you go from there. Then establish some threshold which defines lagerstätten. Interesting concept!

[FossilDAWG]

Well, whatever we call it, the Finis Shale is indeed remarkable in its diversity of species and quality of preservation.  I only wish I lived about 1,000 miles closer to it.  However, then I would never get any work done.

 

Don

[doushantuo]

I'd define a lagerstatt very functionally:

any site which,because of its preservation style,offers insight into the morphology,ecology,origin,systematics,evolution,of fossil taxa,be the fossils body fossil,chemofossil,ichnofossil,

that can NOT be acquired elsewhere.

e.g.:The Moberg Fm.on Iceland contains molluscs in lavabombs(xenoliths)

Personally speaking,I'd consider that a lagerstatt(highly unusual "taphofacies").

I'd even consider Blue Hole a lagerstatt

 

 

 

 

[connorp]

8 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

that can NOT be acquired elsewhere.

This seems like a good point. I was going to counter with the fact that there are a lot of distinct Cambrian lagerstätten that preserve nearly identical biota, but realized this is only partially true because they tend to be very clustered. For example, the Wheeler shale, Marjum Fm, and Weeks Fm are all unique lagerstätten, but all belong to the House Range. And the Heilinpu Fm, Kaili Fm, Wulonqing Fm, etc are all distinct but concentrated in the South China Plate.

[doushantuo]

I just wonder Connorp: is a site with contains fossils from a stratigraphical interval that isn't usually fossiliferous a Lagerstatt? 

some of you may like

finishalepalaios5c85e9d8d90366.pdf

Palaios v.25/10/201o

EFFECTS OF DATA CATEGORIZATION ON PALEOCOMMUNITY ANALYSIS: A CASE STUDY FROMTHE PENNSYLVANIAN FINIS SHALE OF TEXAS
FRANK L. FORCINO, EMILY S. STAFFORD, JARED J. WARNER, AMELINDA E. WEBB, LINDSEY R. LEIGHTON,CHRIS L. SCHNEIDER, TOVA S. MICHLIN, LAUREN M. PALAZZOLO, JARED R. MORROW, and STEPHEN A. SCHELLENBERG

recommended if you're into quantitative studies of paleocommunities 

Both Palaios and Paleobiology have contained(and continue to do so) good studies of the influence of sampling,ordination methods and the use of various 

metrics on our view of the fossil record

[BobWill]

1 hour ago, doushantuo said:

I'd define a lagerstatt very functionally:

any site which,because of its preservation style,offers insight into the morphology,ecology,origin,systematics,evolution,of fossil taxa,be the fossils body fossil,chemofossil,ichnofossil,

that can NOT be acquired elsewhere.

e.g.:The Moberg Fm.on Iceland contains molluscs in lavabombs(xenoliths)

Personally speaking,I'd consider that a lagerstatt(highly unusual "taphofacies").

I'd even consider Blue Hole a lagerstatt

 

 

 

 

Interesting way to clarify the designation but if it was strictly applied would that mean a site could lose the lagerstätte status if it was later found that discoveries at another site could be found to offer the same insight for the same reasons? Would we need to break out another term for sites with only one other comparable example since that would still be pretty special, or am I just getting silly now?