400 Year Old Fossils?

[Scylla]

This really bugs me but they refer to leaf remains that are only a few centuries old as fossils! They should know better. The pre-Columbian forest make up is interesting at least: http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/what-americas-forests-looked-like-before-colonization-131113.htm

[Oxytropidoceras]

There was some discussion of the terminology used previously

in "Fossil? Leaves Found In Pennsylvania / Article" at

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/42047-fossil-leaves-found-in-pennsylvania-article/

The "They should know better" complaint is quite harsh as

it depends on what definition they are using. The most common

definition of "fossil" seems to use a quite arbitrary10,000 BP

cutoff date between what is s fossil and what is not a fossil.

However, other definitions of "fossil" lack any specific time

frame and simply indicate it must be "ancient" or "geologic past"

or a fossil is "loosely, any evidence of past life." As a result,

how "ancient," "geologic past," or "past life" and hence "fossil"

might be defined time-wise is quite nebulous. Whether these

leaves are "fossils" or not can be largely a matter of personal

preference depending the definition used and how terms such as

"ancient" and "past life" might be defined.

The actual paper does not use the term “fossil.” Instead, it

uses the term “subfossil.” In this case, I agree with the authors

with the use of the term "sub-fossil" for these leaves.

The original article is:

Elliott, S. J., P.Wilf, R. C. Walter, and D. J. Merritts, 2013,

Subfossil Leaves Reveal a New Upland Hardwood

Component of the Pre-European Piedmont Landscape,

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. PLoS ONE 8(11):

e79317. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079317

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079317

The press release for this paper is:

Buried leaves reveal precolonial eastern forests and guide

stream restoration by Andrea Elyse Messer, Penn State

News, November 13, 2013, http://news.psu.edu/story/295212/2013/11/13/research/buried-leaves-reveal-precolonial-eastern-forests-and-guide-stream

It uses the term “fossil leaf mat.” Thus, it was in the press

release that “subfossil” got lost in translation. However, I

suspect that given the choice between confusing readers

with the distinction between a “subfossil” and a “fossil,”

that a reporter simply used “fossil” in a loose, popular sense

of this word that they knew the lay public will certainly

understand.

Yours,

Paul H.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Oxytropidoceras

[Scylla]

The rebuke was intended for the journalist, not the authors of the original paper. In English there are many words that could be used that would be more precise in describing the age of the leaves. Yes fossil could be used, but sub-fossil is much better. Old, ancient, pre-Columbian, antique, primeval would all be better choices. Even 30 seconds with an online thesaurus would give many more choices, I'm sure. When it comes to which words to choose, I think a professional writer should know better, don't you? But I should have looked more closely at the date the article was posted, and then I wouldn't have reposted this duplicate!

Edited December 22, 2013 by Scylla