Dear Doctor Dave;-
    Doesn't "fossil" indicate that the material makeup is replaced by some other mineral? If so, wouldn't a sub-fossil be a long-dead critter to which that process had not begun---or proceeded very far?
    NOTE: I hope you tell the proper authorities at Alabama that you can still kick extra points.
     Art
>
> From: bivalve <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2003/09/02 Tue AM 11:52:52 EDT
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Subfossil versus fossil
>
> One technical definition is to call everything Pleistocene and older (over 10,000 years) a fossil and younger but long-dead material subfossils.  However, telling the difference between a well-preserved specimen just over 10,000 years and a highly altered younger specimen may be difficult.  If the age is unknown, using the condition of the shell as a practical division makes sense.
>
>     Dr. David Campbell
>     Old Seashells
>     University of Alabama
>     Biodiversity & Systematics
>     Dept. Biological Sciences
>     Box 870345
>     Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0345 USA
>     [log in to unmask]
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
>

PLEASE NOTE: My new, long-term, and correct email address is: [log in to unmask] Please update your records!