What's The Deal With The Burgess Shale?

[palaeopix]

I don't want to get into the "politics" of the Burgess Shale.

So instead and hopefully lighten up this thread , I am attaching this picture of our field crew (standing in Walcott's old quarry) in July of 1988 ... obviously not much collecting was done that week.

Hey Geodigger thanks for the great photo!

I'd heard about snow at the quarry during the summer months but I've never actually seen it.

Are you in the photo or did you take the photo? Perhaps you could identify the hardy souls in the photo.

If you've got any more photos please don't hold back.

Thanks again!

Dan

[Wrangellian]

I don't mean to bash the ROM either, I guess they're only doing what the bureaucracy allows them, and would probably do more if they were allowed (and funded sufficiently).. I merely want to point out that, amid all the bickering about who owns what, who should get what, etc, there are desirable fossils being left up there (and at Strathcona Park here on the Island.. etc, etc) to disintegrate. I know there are lots of fossils that end up in crushers at construction sites, but this is the Burgess Shale we're dealing with - the rarest kind of fossil. Yes we should be thankful that there are 250 000 specimens available to science, but those that remain on the slope are doing nobody any good up there. They are not a renewable resource like wood. Once they're gone and the quarry is spent, there will never be any more before long the rejects will be gone too so nobody can retrieve them if somebody changes their mind (or the laws). Maybe there will be other Burgess- or Chengjiang-type sites found but I doubt any will have the same assemblage or preservation as the Walcott - So they should come down asap before they're gone, THEN we can decide what to do with them - Have a lottery, Portion them out to schools/colleges - I know there are lots of schools/colleges that don't have any Burgess specimens! It doesn't matter.. they will last longer no matter who holds them, than they would up on the mtn. I wouldn't hold it against those people who steal from the site - I'm not sure if they stole from the unexcavated bedrock or not, but if they took from the tailings (easier to do I would think), maybe that's not such a bad thing! At least the fossil will last longer now. And considering its origin, that specimen is not likely to lose its provenance (Burgess Shale!!!), no matter whose collection it ends up in. If people who took the guided tour (Cdn citizens at least) were allowed to take a specimen or two, then people wouldn't need to steal; they would have a legal route. I don't need a Wiwaxia or an Opabinia, but it would be nice to have a sponge or something representative of the BS.

I could go on, but the point is I don't think any objections to recovering the ROM's 'rejects' have held water, in my view. They're still going to disintegrate up there and the only benefit will be that they add a bit of topsoil to the park, and I don't think that benefit outweighs the benefit to science, educators or collectors.

I think I'm repeating myself so I'll quit now!

Edited November 28, 2010 by Wrangellian

[palaeopix]

Here are some photos I took in 1993 while on a trip to the Burgess Shale. The photos are of specimens the ROM had chosen for inclusion in their collections. It was a thrill to see these spectacular fossils first hand and is an experience I recommend to everyone. Some of the photos may be a bit grainy, as they were scanned from slide film, but I think they do the trick.

The above photos are from left to right: Anomalocaris canadensis raptorial appendage, Aysheaia pedunculata, Leanchoilia superlata, and Waptia fieldensis.

These photos are from left to right: Marrella splendens, Ottoia prolifica, Olenoides serratus and Vauxia gracilenta.

More photos to come in my next post.

Dan

Edited November 28, 2010 by palaeopix

[piranha]

Thanks Paleopix - Please post anything you can find - these are spectacular fossils!

[Darwin Ahoy]

I understand that illegal collecting is a problem. I also realize this wouldn't be a perfect solution. But if fee-based collecting were allowed in the piles of rejected material, wouldn't this actually help alleviate the illegal collecting? Why risk collecting illegally when you can just go do it legally? My only suspicion here is that sometimes people aren't happy with what's there, and want to go looking for something better...but then those are probably the people who will never stop doing it illegally in the first place. And as the Burgess Shale material becomes more common and less expensive, prices and demand will begin to drop, also taking away more of the motivation behind this illegal collecting.

As far as the concern for things like ivory are concerned...I'm not sure if ivory was in fact involved, but the USF&W (I think) just recently had a large auction of confiscated animal materials.

I think I'm just rambling at this point

[palaeopix]

OK so here are some more photos from 2002. This time I visited the Burgess Shale and the Stephen Trilobite Beds. I did the Burgess Shale Hike one day the the Mount Stephen hike the next day. Needless to say I was sore for about a week after the trip but it was worth it.

The first photo is of Elrathina cordillerae and the second is the Wiwaxia corrugata I mentioned in an earlier post.

These photos were taken on Mount Stephen and show just how many trilobites can be found. The trilobites are everywhere at the fossil beds on Mount Stephen. The second photo is a closeup of Ogygopsis klotzi.

Both the Burgess Shale and Mount Stephen hikes are highly recommended!!!!

Dan

Edited January 20, 2011 by palaeopix

[palaeopix]

I sit on the fence when it comes to the Burgess Shale and the possibility of collecting material from this World Heritage Site. I would love to own a specimen or two (of everything), but I think we need to be realistic with or desires. If I want to see fossils from the Burgess Shale I simply head to the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller (Alberta) or sign up for a guided hike. Nothing beats making the long and somewhat difficult journey to the site. And when I want to bring something home, I do so with my camera. It may not be the same as holding the real thing, but believe me every photo I take brings back fond memories. Memories so strong they make me long to return to the actual site.

If every trip member were permitted to take a specimen or two, eventually there would be nothing left to see except un-quarried rock. What would be the point of returning to the Burgess Shale if everything had been removed? Part of the mystique and experience of the guided hikes is that you can search the talus and find your "own" fossils. Of course it would be great to keep your finds, but what about future hike participants? Do they not deserve to experience the thrill of discovery like everyone else?

Dan

Edited November 28, 2010 by palaeopix

[palaeopix]

Here are few more photos piranha. These were taken in 2009 during a hike to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Burgess Shale's discovery.

The photos are from left to right: Ottoia prolifica, Vauxia gracilenta and Pagetia bootes with an unidentified worm (perhaps Louisella pedunculata).

[Wrangellian]

I was going to edit my last rant down to a simple "It's a crying shame that any fossil has to be left up there to disintegrate just because we can't decide who should get them".. but no doubt I will feel the need to cover some of those points later, if I erase them above.

I agree it was fun to go up there and get pics and look thru the tailings, and I recommend the trip as well, but I could go without being able to LOOK AT the fossils in the tailings for the sake of preserving those fossils long-term. They won't last as long up there as they will in museums or people's collections (no matter whose). You could still go up there and see the site and the sights, and I would still recommend it. However not everybody has the money or the able body to travel up there and go on that hike - what was it, ~12 km each way? I was in my teens and it nearly killed me, too! Especially the downhill portion near the end.. holy snarge.

Nice pics Dan! If I can figure out how to put slides onto my 'puter I might post some of my own. Come to think of it I think my scanner has that ability, just have to figure it out...

There was a critter they had recently found when we were up there, it was a long skinny onycophoran-type thing, and they had a funny long nickname for it (as it hadn't been formally named yet).. unfortunately we failed to get a pic of it or to record that name they had for it! (It was funny) I hope somebody remembers it.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Auspex

[palaeopix]

Here are some great books on the Burgess Shale. I recommend each and every one of them. All have great photos and drawings. Some are a bit behind the times on classification but I think that makes them all the more interesting. I refer to them frequently when I need info on the Burgess Shale.

And don't forget Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life. It's a classic even though much of its content is outdated. Wish I still had my copy!

Dan

[pleecan]

Thanks Dan for posting those fabulous photos of Burgess site... beautiful fossils..... also great selection of books!

Peter

[palaeopix]

If I can figure out how to put slides onto my 'puter I might post some of my own. Come to think of it I think my scanner has that ability, just have to figure it out...

There was a critter they had recently found when we were up there, it was a long skinny onycophoran-type thing, and they had a funny long nickname for it (as it hadn't been formally named yet).. unfortunately we failed to get a pic of it or to record that name they had for it! (It was funny) I hope somebody remembers it.

Hey Eric,

I would love to see your photos once you get them into your computer. All photos of the BS are welcome.

I'm not familiar with the find you refer to. I'll have to see if I can find any more information on that find. There are have been so many new and weird things found at the BS (and adjacent sites) that still need to be described, identified and placed in existing groups or perhaps even a new group.

When I was at the BS in 1993, Banffia constricta was all the rage. I for the life of me don't recall why but there was a researcher singularly dedicated to that particular beast.

Dan

[palaeopix]

You must be thinking of the McAbee site.

I don't like that McAbee isn't being protected from exploitation

The McAbee is another glaring sore point to both amateur and professional paleontologists. For those of you unfamiliar with the McAbee Fossil beds check out this summary by Mark Wilson of the University of Alberta.

McAbee Fossil Site Assessment Final Report July 30, 2007

Revised August 5, 2007 Further revised October 24, 2008 Contract CCLAL08009 by

Mark V. H. Wilson, Ph.D. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

copied from page 3 of the report:

"The McAbee fossil site is a fossil mining operation operated by claim holders Dxxxx Lxxxxxxx of Kamloops and Rxxxxx Dxxxxxx of Utah. The fossil site is contained within the Zugg 1 mineral claim.

The fossil-bearing strata are part of the McAbee beds, an informally named rock unit that is contained within the Kamloops Group of Eocene age. It is located east of Cache Creek, B.C., and west of Kamloops, lying just north of and visible from Highway 1/97.

This report was prepared after making inquiries of both professional scientists and amateur and semi-professional collectors as to the history and significance of the fossil site. A thorough literature review was also carried out, and a site visit was made to the fossil site itself and also to interview local interested persons and to view collections of fossils in private and institutional collections in Kamloops.

Fossils are collected regularly at McAbee by professional collectors, amateurs and school groups, and occasionally by scientists. Fossils from the site are variously retained by collectors for their private collections, sold on the internet and by other means, or donated or sold to institutional collections such as that of Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Institutions holding fossils from the site include museums and universities in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New York, Illinois, and Washington State. Some of those museum holdings result from purchases from dealers or claim holders.

The fossil site is the most diverse known in British Columbia for species of plants and insects of Eocene age, although only a small fraction of the diversity has yet been formally described or at least identified to genus and species. Nevertheless there are more scientific papers about McAbee fossils than any other Eocene site in B.C. There is also a low-diversity fish fauna, and occasional finds of birds, spiders, and crayfish. Compared to other sites in British Columbia, it has a much greater diversity of known fossil species of plants and insects (and probably a greater potential for future discoveries of new species). Its advantages include its accessibility, the abundance, diversity, and intact preservation of its fossils, and their ready recognition by collectors in the field and by the public. Some aspects of the fossil preservation are exceeded by fossil localities elsewhere in the province, most notably by the Horsefly beds (because of the annual diatom layers of that deposit) and by the Princeton Chert (because of the cellular-level plant anatomy). Nevertheless the McAbee deposit has the greatest known taxonomic diversity by far in the region, offering a unique window into the animals and plants living in B.C. during one of the warmest periods in the history of the earth.

Some scientists are concerned about the barriers to scientific research caused by the activities of the claim holders, and about the loss of scientifically valuable fossil specimens through accidental destruction, excavation activities, private collecting, and sale for profit. The claim holders and certain serious amateur collectors believe that the activities of the claim holders are bringing numerous important specimens to light for scientific study and that most scientists have made too little effort themselves toward doing serious scientific research on the deposit, relying instead on specimens made available to them by the collectors. Individuals on both sides desire to see a museum or interpretive centre on site for public education and other purposes, though the details of this vision differ between the scientists and the collectors.

The McAbee fossil site is already one of the two or three most significant sites in British Columbia for scientific study of Cenozoic (early Eocene) fossils. Given its key advantages of high taxonomic diversity, fossil abundance, site accessibility, excellent preservation, and recognizable fossils, the McAbee site has the potential to become as useful for scientific, educational, museum exhibition, and tourism purposes as the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument in the USA."

For anyone interested I can send a PDF copy of the whole assessment. Please contact me via my email or via the personal messenger within the forum.

I bring this up because: (1) Rights to the site are held by two individuals one from Kamloops and the other from the US. I don't have anything against people from the states but it seems odd that rights to such a valuable paleontological resource be granted to any one or two individuals whether they be from BC or elsewhere. and (2) Certain parties wish to restrict (I mean prevent) all collecting by amateurs at the site.

So as you can see the Burgess Shale is not the only significant paleontological site in BC that has management problems.

Edited November 28, 2010 by palaeopix

[palaeopix]

Here are a few more of my Burgess Shale papers. As you can see they were put out by the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and written by no other than Harry B. Whittington. The titles are pretty self explanitory so I won't give details on their contents other than to say both contain numerous fine photographs and drawings. The Marrella paper is considered one of Whittington's classics from the Burgess Shale. And I did only pay $3.00 each for them. Gotta love the GSC!

Dan

[Wrangellian]

Hey Eric,

I would love to see your photos once you get them into your computer. All photos of the BS are welcome.

I'm not familiar with the find you refer to. I'll have to see if I can find any more information on that find. There are have been so many new and weird things found at the BS (and adjacent sites) that still need to be described, identified and placed in existing groups or perhaps even a new group.

When I was at the BS in 1993, Banffia constricta was all the rage. I for the life of me don't recall why but there was a researcher singularly dedicated to that particular beast.

Dan

It's been a long time now so memory is fuzzy, but was a long skinny wormlike thing with widely-spaced stubby legs (maybe they were stubby projections on the back? Reminds me of the Hallucigenia story..)

I saw a Banffia up there too, they specifically pointed it out as a new oddity so I remember that quite well -might have a pic of it too, i'll have to look.

I know there has been lot of new things discovered since then and the only book I have is the Briggs/Erwin/Collier one, and I often wonder if there are newer books with the new discoveries included.

Eric

[Wrangellian]

The McAbee is another glaring sore point to both amateur and professional paleontologists.

...

So as you can see the Burgess Shale is not the only significant paleontological site in BC that has management problems.

For sure. It seems these two examples sit at the opposite end of the spectrum.. I hope there is something in the middle that can be aspired to for all such sites. What is the situation at Driftwood Canyon in Smithers, I understood it was inside a park but but it seems collecting is legal to some degree?

[palaeopix]

...I often wonder if there are newer books with the new discoveries included.

Eric

In my travels I have not seen any new books on the Burgess Shale that cover the newer discoveries. There's the book by The Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation but it's pretty basic and only shows the older material. The book by Briggs et al is still probably the best for photos but as you know there's nothing new in it. Hopefully the ROM will put something together because it's long overdue.

Dan

[palaeopix]

What is the situation at Driftwood Canyon in Smithers, I understood it was inside a park but but it seems collecting is legal to some degree?

Oh course Driftwood Canyon is another significant paleontological resource within British Columbia but it now lies within Driftwood Canyon Provincial Park. As such collecting is not allowed. I have not heard of anyone collecting in the area unless there is an exposure outside the park boundaries. I know a great deal of collecting occurred before the site was protected. I have a single March Fly from the site that I received as a gift back in 1980.

Dan

[piranha]

Oh course Driftwood Canyon is another significant paleontological resource within British Columbia but it now lies within Driftwood Canyon Provincial Park. As such collecting is not allowed. I have not heard of anyone collecting in the area unless there is an exposure outside the park boundaries. I know a great deal of collecting occurred before the site was protected. I have a single March Fly from the site that I received as a gift back in 1980.

Dan

I've got one as well - a water strider. Any additional photos of the fauna and flora from DC would be great!

[palaeopix]

I've got one as well - a water strider. Any additional photos of the fauna and flora from DC would be great!

Wow very nice Scott!!!

Did you collect that yourself?

Dan

Edit: That water strider is spectacular. You are really fortunate to have such an exceptional specimen. Now I'm really jealous!!!!

Edited November 30, 2010 by palaeopix

[Wrangellian]

I see, that makes sense. I thought I heard of a site that was a park but that some degree of collecting was allowed.. maybe it was a different site, I don't know.

Well I have some specimens, nothing as interesting as those insects but I might make some scans to post.. but maybe that should be an a different thread?

[palaeopix]

I thought I heard of a site that was a park but that some degree of collecting was allowed.. maybe it was a different site...

You may be thinking of the Republic Site down in Washington State. You are allowed to collect at that site but anything new or rare is retained by the Stone Rose Interpretive Center.

Dan

P.S. There's no harm in posting a few things off topic. Besides it's nice to compare what's happening at these other sites. Maybe we can apply some of their solutions to the Burgess Shale. Just a thought.

Edited November 30, 2010 by palaeopix

[piranha]

Wow very nice Scott!!!

Did you collect that yourself?

Dan

Have never been to the Great White North for collecting. If I'm in your neighborhood I'll be sure to PM you!

I would be more than a little nervous especially being in a foreign province and given all of the draconian rules and regs there. I have had brushes with ODOT workers, Park Rangers and Police just looking for leaves which is ALLOWED in Oregon. And that includes BLM, Public Lands, National Parks/Forests and ODOT right of way highways. Even the Omnibus Bill language allows for the non commercial collection of fossil leaves. That is the reflex response though .... a generic "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" is expected. I've learned to always keep the printed charts and tables at hand to clarify and diffuse quickly. No matter what your heart will stop when a state trooper swoops in with the lights flashing .... stop - move away from the fossil! DOH

[palaeopix]

If I'm in your neighborhood I'll be sure to PM you!

There are some pretty cool sites up here and you're welcome anytime. OK, well not right now, as it is snowing and colder than all get out!!!

Dan

[palaeopix]

OK back to the Burgess Shale.

Here are few more photos taken in 1993. The two photos of Waptia fieldensis are closeups of the photo posted earlier.

Part and counterpart of Waptia fieldensis.

Here are both halves of the Olenoides serratus I posted earlier.

This is Leanchoilia superlata (far left) and Naroia compacta (on the right).

Below are two more photos of Ogygopsis klotzi from the Mount Stephen Trilobite Beds. These photos were taken in 2002.

Edit: The photo of Leanchoilia superlata also has an Anomalocaris canadensis raptorial appendage and oral disc.

Edited November 30, 2010 by palaeopix