Dear all,
as I used the term in the title of my diploma thesis (without proper
investigation for a stout definition in advance) I felt somewhat
concerned about this thread and checked some German literature. Here
is a definition from a German palaeontological nomanclature book.
Lehmann (1977, 368) defines "subfossil" as follows:
"zwischen rezent und fossil vermittelnd, etwa gleich "prähistorisch",
jedoch ohne genaue Festlegung. Johannes Walther nannte subfossil
Arten, die in historischer Zeit ausgestorben sind. In der
Paläobotanik gilt der Erhaltungzustand als Hauptkriterium, so dass
unter Umständen auch tertiäre Pflanzenfossilien noch "subfossil"
genannt werden können."
Translation:
"inbetween recent and fossil mediating, like "prehistoric", but
without exact definition. Johannes Walther called those species
subfossil, that went extinct in historic times. In palaeobotany the
preservation status is used as criterion, therefore owing to
circumstances even tertiary plant fossils can be called "subfossil".
Reference:
Lehmann, Ulrich (1977): Paläontologisches Wörterbuch, Stuttgart
Best
Christian
--
KNOCHENARBEIT
Hans Christian Küchelmann
Diplom-Biologe
Konsul-Smidt-Straße 30, D-28217 Bremen, Germany
tel: +421 - 61 99 177
fax: +421 - 37 83 540
mail: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.knochenarbeit.de
Am 02.08.2009 um 11:51 schrieb Greg Campbell:
> I fear I have recently misinformed the subscribers of ZOOARCH
> regarding the lack of definition of the term sub-fossil. A little
> more digging shows no definition of the term in recent geological
> or palaeontological literature, but not all that literature is
> recent. So:
>
> (Page 1856, 171): When petrification has not taken place, and the
> organism is merely embedded in superficial clay and gravels, the
> term subfossil is that more properly applied.
>
> Page, D. 1856: Advanced textbook of geology (1st edn) (Edinburgh:
> Blackwood & Sons).
>
> I am duly chastened for my teasing of geology and palaeontology.
>
> Greg Campbell
|