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
>
> >