| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
In message Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:30:54 -0800, wriedel@ucsd.edu (William Riedel 619-534-4386) writes: > > Hi, Cindy and Clive and D.L Clark: > I don't know anything about how > isotopes and REE act in conodonts and fish teeth, but I'm always > interested in promoting ichthyoliths as research material - we have a > lot of them in our Scripps cores, and DSDP and ODP cores are even better > sources. When one talks about ichthyoliths in general, the term > includes bone fragments and scales, as well as teeth of varying degrees > of "density", or "robustness" or whatever you'd like to call it. I > would imagine that the most robust teeth are much less prone to > diagenetic changes than the less robust scales and bone fragments. I'm > most familiar with Cenozoic and late Mesozoic assemblages, but people > like Linda Tway (now a visiting scholar here at Scripps) have worked on > Paleozoic ichthyoliths. Questions about ichthyoliths we might be able > to answer. Conodonts not. > Bill R. W. Riedel > Scripps Institution of Oceanography > UCSD > La Jolla, CA 92093-0220 > > wriedel@ucsd.edu > phone (619) 534-4386 > fax (619) 534-0784 > Hi Bill_ I agree that fish teeth probably are more reliable for chemical studies than bone or scales. In our Cretaceous work the amount of material we had was so small that we combined teeth and other ichthyoliths and our 87Sr/86Sr ratios showed the imprint of diagenesis. We need to separate the samples in the future to confirm the fact that it is the bone and scale material that is unreliable, but I will bet that this proves to be correct. I didn't realize that Linda was still at Scripps. Does she have an email address? I would like to contact her. Dave Clark
Partial index: