Re: paleonet 'Exceptional' preservation?

["Nikolaus Malchus" <n.malchus@xxxxxxx>]

Joe and all,

Apparently I lately had a little philosophical attack, ;-). (I nice chat
with John Jackson, not over the list).

I of course agree to what has been commented so far on the subject. I am
very sure there is much more exceptional material out there than one might
expect from current knowledge and more than the term 'exceptional' might
suggest. It is certainly a matter of looking at things more carefully.

Copying this
>   For Niko and Andy in particular, you are of course right that we have to
> be careful to define exceptionality relative to 'normal,' but there are >
some things that I think we would all argue are 'exceptional' in that they >
are (allegedly) rarely preserved. 

I think, this does the trick. 

Cheers,

Niko 



> Good to see all the interesting responses so far, and it's very 
> interesting that the terrestrial record in particular seems to be much 
> richer than I imagined. As extremes, from what little I know of Liaoning 
> and the Argentine dinosaur beds, both have abundant unmineralised 
> invertebrate remains that are effectively unstudied, because almost 
> everyone wants the dinosaurs. I had thought that they were... well, 
> exceptional.
> 
>   For Niko and Andy in particular, you are of course right that we have to
> be careful to define exceptionality relative to 'normal,' but there are 
> some things that I think we would all argue are 'exceptional' in that they
> are (allegedly) rarely preserved. In a list of lability including 
> protoplasm, internal organs, muscle, integument, unmineralised cuticle 
> insect), lightly mineralised cuticle (some crustaceans), cellulose and 
> shelly stuff, 'exceptional as a general term would probably fall around 
> the insect-crustacean point. Of course, there is also the exceptional 
> preservation of articulated skeletons, such as sponges and echinoderms, 
> where effectively live burial is a pre-requisite. Although we will all 
> have slightly different views, and there are other ways of judging 
> exceptionality, what I'm asking about is whether our understanding the the
> distinction, as in the list above, is reasonable. From what Breandan, 
> Judith... and, sorry, the other terrestrial palaeoecologist! - have been 
> saying, there may be much more information there that is generally 
> ignored. While not all squidgy things in a fauna are ever preserved, is 
> there a small proportion that *are*, in almost every fauna?
> 
> It would also be interesting to hear from people who work on sites with 
> definite 'soft tissue' preservation, as to the abundance of it, and 
> whether their finds rely on good exposure of lots of fresh material. It's 
> probably not a coincidence, I would guess, that so many of the classic 
> Lagerstaetten are in major quarries. For example, the abundant 
> preservation of truly labile tissues, such as cnidarians with tentacles, 
> in pyrite (our 'biggest' discovery in the Builth area so far), is from a 
> site that has been popular with palaeontologists for at least 70 years. I 
> had myself been working there 10 years before even seeing the pyritised 
> stuff. The reason? It appears to weather very quickly when exposed to 
> Welsh weather. One specimen we left exposed as an experiment was 
> unrecognisable after a week. (Anyone working on black shales with bits of 
> weathered iron oxides, look very carefully indeed... ;-)
> 
> Joe 
> 
> 
> > Well, I guess in a way all terrestrial forms are "exceptional" but some 
> > are more exceptional than others. And those "some" might be, in the 
> > main, inverts and plants. However muscle tissue preservation which I 
> > have seen in dinos and fish are amazing but I guess the most amazing 
> > that I have heard of is the recent finding of the tissue and cells in 
> > T. rex. Wowie-zowie.
> > 
> > I think that Joe has given us the morals to this story which is that 
> > (1) we must continually be on the lookout for these things and (2) it 
> > helps if you are studying the deposit as a potential paleoecosystem 
> > (taphonomy willing).
> > 
> > Judith,
> > 
> > judith harris
> > emerita professor
> > university of colorado museum
> > 
> > On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Cary Easterday wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As a terrestrial researcher, I wonder about the meaning of 
> > > "exceptional" too.  Plant and insect fossils are MUCH more diverse and
> > > abundant than terrestrial vertebrates, yet there are many more 
> > > vertebrate paleontologists than paleobotanists and paleoentomologists!
> > >  If we look at sheer numbers...maybe we should call vertebrate fossils
> > > "exceptional," eh?  ;)
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Cary R. Easterday
> > > PhD student, Geology, Paleobiology, Terrestrial Ecosystems, 
> > > Geoarthropods, Biostatistics
> > > Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
> > > University of Illinois at Chicago
> > > 845 West Taylor Street, Room 2440
> > > Chicago, IL 60607
> > >
> > > ceaste2@uic.edu
> > > phone: 708.707.1030     fax: 312.413.2279
> > >
> > > Geological Society of America, Geobiology & Geomicrobiology Division, 
> > > Limnogeology Division
> > > Entomological Society of America
> > > Paleontological Society
> > >
> > > Moderator
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleogeoarthropoda
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FossilBugz
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sciencehumor
> > >
> > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > From: Judith Harris <harrisj@cvn.com>
> > > Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> > > To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: paleonet 'Exceptional' preservation?
> > > Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:27:33 -0600
> > >
> > > As a paleoecologist, I am excited to hear Joe's views about 
> > > exceptional preservation. I work with the terrestrial (including 
> > > freshwater) record. In going over my fieldwork in my mind, I believe 
> > > that you are correct. Even in the terrestrial record where 
> > > preservation is difficult, there are many occasions in which some 
> > > fossils in the section are "exceptionally preserved" or at least that 
> > > it seems like surprising that they are preserved at all. It is not the
> > > bones and the teeth but the roots, rootlets, trace fossils, seeds, 
> > > insects, leaves, etc. I think that Joe might be right when he mentions
> > > that these may often be overlooked. As we paleoecologists look at the 
> > > record, searching for something other than just the main systematic 
> > > groups, we will begin to see more and more of this. Of course, T. rex 
> > > blood cells and vessels are an extreme version of this.
> > >
> > > judith harris
> > > emerita professor
> > > university of colorado museum
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Department of Earth Sciences
> University of Cambridge
> Downing Street
> Cambridge CB2 3EQ
> Phone: ( +44 ) 1223 333400
> Fax: ( +44 ) 1223 333450
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---
ADDRESS: Dept. de Geologia/Unitat Paleontologia, Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, Campus, 
Edifici Cs, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Catalunya, SPAIN
---
Tel xx34-93-581-1464/Fax -1263
---
n.malchus@gmx.net (admits larger attachments)
nikolaus.malchus@uab.es (max. 2MB for attachments)
---