Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:17:46 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Interestingly, a Dutch malacologist once argued that subfossil actually
means NOT fossil, only giving the impression of being fossil (e.g.
encrusted, bleached, etc)
Marien Faber
www.mollus.nl
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Subfossil versus fossil
> Dear Andrew et al;-
> Here in Cincinnati, all our Brachiopods and Trilobites, Horn Corals,
etc. are fossils. They range about 400 million years. Ordivician. The only
sub-fossils we have serve on city council and the various judicial benches.
> But, seriously, is the term "sub-fossil" really relevant? Don't we have
enough trouble with sub-species, form of, cf., "interesting variety", etc.?
> When does a shell jump from just plain dead to sub-fossilization? Is
there a percentage of replacement that must be met? It's all very confusing.
I think I'll collect match-book covers.
> Q-Man
>
> >
|
|
|