🧵 Paleontology thread
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:54:36 UTC No. 16220066
Hey there, shall we get a paleontology Q&A thread going?
I myself am not a paleontologist yet, I'm actually about to start my masters in paleontology in the fall, but I have a degree in geology and love fossils so I think I can help with some things that might be nebulous. Obviously, I'd appreciate if paleontologists, biologists, and geologists would help in the thread as well. Thanks in advance.
I can tell there's some confusion about paleontology regarding things like how does fossilization occur, in which environments does it occur or not, how and where are fossils found, how easy or not are they to find and how you can find them too, how are fossil trackways preserved now on rock that used to be soft-sediment and where you can go see them for yourselves, how do integrative biologists attempt to reconstruct organisms and attempt to place them on evolutionary trees, how are those nice skeleton mounts assembled and how much of it fossil material or not, or even how much of it is from a single find or multiple finds, how are fossils prepared, what are microfossils, how do we use fossils to relate different rock layers to one another, how are fossils used in petroleum exploration, etc. There is so much to paleontology, it just never ends.
Here's a nice photo of the fossilized remains of a spinophorosaurus being excavated, isn't it amazing?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 17:10:15 UTC No. 16220117
>>16220066
you sure do seem to like talking about yourself on social media
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 17:42:46 UTC No. 16220180
>>16220117
Funny, yes, but I actually do not have a single social media account anymore, I closed them all, and I dare you to do the same.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:32:56 UTC No. 16220279
>>16220066
Can you give some general advice on how to find fossils? What tools do you need?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:03:18 UTC No. 16220447
>>16220279
These are really good questions, and is what half of my paleontology undergrad was focused on. What you're going to want to do is, to find fossils try searching in volcanic rock formations, as they often contain preserved remains. Ideally you should go solo. Bring a metal detector, which can help spot those tough to locate fossils hidden deep underground. Use a high-pressure hose to quickly wash away dirt and reveal any fossils. Be sure to carry a magnifying glass, or a portable microscope to inspect any small details in the fossils you find. Last piece of advice, always dig deep holes, as the best fossils are usually buried far below the surface.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:59:16 UTC No. 16220569
>>16220279
anon, this guy is trolling you:
>>16220447
He is trolling you because fossils aren't found in:
- volcanic rocks (basalt, andesite, and rhyolite, etc) : simply put, lava burns and destroys everything. Nor will you find fossils in
- plutonic rocks (granite, diorite, and gabbro) because that is rock that formed at great depth from magma intruded through the surrounding rock, and ended up crystalizing in place.
It's not impossible to find rocks in:
- volcanic ash, or tuff, but it's very rare, so don't count on that.
- metamorphic rocks like marble, but don't count on that.
Anyway, to find fossils you need sedimentary rocks. But not any sedimentary rocks, sedimentary rocks of the right age (most are), and rocks that contain detectable fossils (not all are). Imagine this: a rock that forms on an abissal plane will have little fossil material since it forms from "marine snow". It will be mostly extremely fine sediments, and mostly microfossils. Now imagine a rock that formed from sediment laid down in an estuary: there are mollusks, worms, fish, birds, fishivores, some carnivores. You get the point?
So to find out where to look for fossils where you live, you need to know the rocks where you live, and for that you need to consult either a geologic map, or spare yourself the frustration and inquire with those who already know where to go. A teacher, someone at the local museum, etc.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:00:16 UTC No. 16220573
>>16220279
>>16220569
As far as tools... it depends, some places are super easy. The fossils are literally lying on the ground. This might happen because the rock is soft, like siltstones or mudstones, and with each raining season, more might be washed and exposed. This is me picking up a fossil that was on the ground, it was just lying there: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YfpR
or maybe it dislodged from hard rock by erosion, like this one I gently picked off some eroded limestone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kJ
sea cliffs are great for this stuff, there are always blocks falling off, so new stuff might be waiting for you.
Sometimes the fossils are still locked in the rock, what we call the "matrix", and you only see a little bit sticking out. You have to crack the rock to expose more, and then use air scribes (AKA engravers, air pens) to etch away the remainder of the rock matrix.
Then there are trackways, but those are more rare to find.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:01:17 UTC No. 16220580
>>16220569
>It's not impossible to find fossils in:
FTFY
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:42:53 UTC No. 16220784
>>16220569
Thanks anon. I knew that the other guy was full of it when they suggested looking at igneous rocks for fossils.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:46:14 UTC No. 16220795
>>16220573
Thanks anon. What about finding larger fossil specimens (e.g. dinosaur skeletons, etc.)? Do they just find a patch land with the right geology and just start digging until they find something?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 06:02:47 UTC No. 16221406
>>16220795
>Do they just find a patch land with the right geology
Yes, that is exactly the case. Modern geology has been around since the late 1700s, and thanks to the enthusiasm of many generations of rock nerds, much of the planet has been mapped (some places are still poorly mapped, so surprises are still out there) and its rocks "dated" in relation to one another, so even before we knew with more exactitude how old they are, we already knew which ones formed above one another, and so how they rare related age-wise.
In the process of mapping, the rocks are assessed for future quarrying and for potential minerals of interest for future mining. In that process, fossils are found by pure chance. Paleontologists are keen to follow such developments, and so they return to those locations to look into that matter specifically.
Nowadays we already know where most of the good areas for dinosaur fossils are. For example, if in the USA, you go to the Morrison Formation. If in Europe, you can go to the Lourinhã Formation. In South America, Candeleros Formation. In China, Yixian Formation. But there are many more, those are just examples.
>and just start digging
Once there... we're talking about vast geographic areas, so even though prospecting indeed consists of "walking about" until you find something, you can be smart about it: near cliff walls where blocks fall, after heavy rains that wash the soil, on steep slopes where sediment mostly gets eroded, on very soft rock layers where that erosion occurs faster and something might not only get exposed in that soft layer itself, but blocks of harder rock layers above it might loose support and dislodge/break apart, etc. Notice that on my videos, I'm at such a location. I know where the fossils are, and I know where they will likely be exposed.
But that's for biological remains. For trackways, the conditions for preservation are different, so they will be found in different regions.
But that's how.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 07:22:53 UTC No. 16221491
>>16220066
its amazing that these dinosaurs had the decency to hold funerals for one another.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:25:42 UTC No. 16221844
>>16221406
Thanks
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:28:28 UTC No. 16224471
>>16224162
Here.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:46:06 UTC No. 16224496
>>16224471
how can we help you anon?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:06:43 UTC No. 16224533
>>16224162
Poor design,
Imagine the head of blood pressure the heart would have dealt with???
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:13:02 UTC No. 16224547
>>16220066
There is something unmistakable about Chinese visual "art". Something that is equally repulsive irrespective of genre; their realist portraits and their abstract scribbles alike are pervaded by the same je ne sais quoi. The same quality, I suppose, that makes honeycombs and spiderwebs disgusting to humans, no matter how neat the hexagons is or how straight the silk. Astute observers will notice that the very same quality is present in these "in situ" installations: the conglomeration of supposed bones cannot but strike one as resembling an upturned bug. And, indeed, have "in situ" images not infested the media right around the time it became mainstream knowledge that the Chinese fabricate "fossils" as commodities?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:40:07 UTC No. 16224620
>>16224533
Yes, that is a matter of great discussion, and opinions diverge in regards to specific sauropod species like brachiosaurus.
Some paleontologist think that there was a limit to how high they could lift their heads. Others think that we just cannot assume too much about the limits of the soft tissues of these creatures since there is no current living analog, and therefore they probably did lift their heads quite high to forage on the canopies of trees. Especially since there are other sauropod species that are not as tall at their shoulders, their necks are shorter, and their dentition indicates they foraged shrubs and shorter vegetation. In a way, these types of sauropods only seems to have fitted in a niche of tall herbivores eating tall trees.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:42:00 UTC No. 16224626
>>16224620
However, back to their soft tissues, you have to understand that, just like therapod dinosaurs are evolutionarily closer to birds than they are to early dinosaurs, and therefore we should think of them as primitive birds with teeth, and not similar to sluggish reptiles, so were sauropods different as well. Unfortunately, unlike avian dinosaurs, sauropods all went extinct, but from everything we have so far learned about them, they were a completely different type of animal that never again evolved. Something maybe like a quadrupedal bird-like, elephant-shaped, air-filled-bone, long-necked animal "thing".
For example. What if all marine mammals had gone extinct and we only had bones to figure out what they did and how they did it? How could anyone, based on land-mammals only, ever explain exactly what is a whale and what did it do? First, they had to determine that it was a mamal from residual fossil finds! Did it look like a fish? How did it breathe? With soft gills that never fossilized? Did it have lungs? How did cope with Saltwater Aspiration Syndrome? Etc
You get the point?
A sauropod is not really like any reptile we know anymore, it's not a bird, in not a mamal, it's not anything we will ever know.
So, they may have well developed proteins, tissues, soft structures, etc, that did not fossilize, and that did allow them to eat the canopies of tall trees. The answer you seek is this: we don't know, but we are trying to understand.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:52:00 UTC No. 16224668
>>16224626
>Something maybe like a quadrupedal bird-like, elephant-shaped, air-filled-bone, long-necked animal "thing".
i fukcin LUV souience!11 XDDDDDDDDD
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:57:01 UTC No. 16224682
>>16224547
>And, indeed, have "in situ" images not infested the media right around the time it became mainstream knowledge that the Chinese fabricate "fossils" as commodities?
Yes, there are fossil forgeries, obviously, because there are private fossil collectors, like anything else, and so there is always someone thinking of ways to dupe someone into buying a forgery..
I personally cannot recall now a case of a recent dig site forgery for the intent of.. I guess, pushing the sale of fake fossils, or to mislead other researchers. I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just not aware of one. Maybe way back in the earlier days of paleontology, it might have happened.
However, there are mock fossil site excavations: museums assemble them for people to be able to see what a dig site looks like. Same thing goes for archeology, etc.
Could photos of such be taken out of context and confuse the viewer? Possible
But, fossil dig sites of large animals (not just dinosaurs) are found all over the globe, and many people work on those sites, not to mention that the material extracted is analyzed by even many more researchers, thin-sliced and observed under the microscope, etc.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:09:41 UTC No. 16224721
>>16224547
continuing from
>>16224682
the photo here:
>>16220066
is a dig site in the Republic of Niger, specifically:
>Spinophorosaurus nigerensis, holotype skeleton GCP-CV-4229 in situ during excavation in the region of Aderbissinat, Thirozerine Dept., Agadez Region, Republic of Niger.
The region is a flat desert area with practically no vegetation, with bedrock that is of the right age (as explained way up in the thread), where there is lots of loose sand, and where any remaining rock outcrops are sand-blasted by windstorms. Whatever few outcrops that there are around, they are enduring that type of erosion. these areas are perfect to find fossils because the wind does much of the work.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:12:32 UTC No. 16224728
>>16224721
You can see that the fossil was very close to the top of a layer of rock, itself just below the looser material that is constantly being rearranged by the winds, and there is not much as far as sand goes above it. A segment of bone was likely naturally exposed and detected by passers-by, and the rock subsequently removed around the rest of the bones.
I have marked the edges of the excavated rock layer for you. Above it is only loose material, gravel and sand, which it too was removed.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:13:33 UTC No. 16224732
>>16224668
>i fukcin LUV souience!
Haha, true! But it is what it is, it's something we don't know!
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:16:56 UTC No. 16224739
>>16224682
>there are fossil forgeries
here is an entire lecture on that matter, it's not a secret:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSz
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:28:28 UTC No. 16224900
>>16224626
>The answer you seek is this: we don't know, but we are trying to understand.
All living things evolved to be gigantic. The answer will be unconventional but universal.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:12:02 UTC No. 16225026
>>16224900
>All living things evolved to be gigantic.
Explain please what you mean by that. What things?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:23:15 UTC No. 16225051
>>16225026
Respectfully, what do you think I meant by that?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:44:04 UTC No. 16225093
>>16225051
You made a statement that is not true if referring to life on earth, or even dinosaurs, and it was therefore confusing, so I asked you to clarify.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:05:10 UTC No. 16225235
>>16225093
Um, other than earth, is there evidence of life? Not that I know of.
I do know plenty of time for Carboniferous, Paleozoic, Mesozoic & Cenozoic Era for evolution to take place.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:27:20 UTC No. 16225271
>>16225235
OK i'm going to comment on what you said here:
>>16224900
>All living things evolved to be gigantic.
Life on earth does not always evolve to be gigantic. There is life of all sizes, as you know. All this life has evolved too, and is still evolving.
Regarding dinosaurs specifically: not all dinosaurs were gigantic, there were many small dinosaurs, like the example in this figure, Microraptor.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-fish-
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:35:24 UTC No. 16225297
>>16225271
Well, if we ignore all things gigantic, then you're right.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:49:30 UTC No. 16225326
>>16225297
>Well, if we ignore all things gigantic
As I said:
>There is life of all sizes
(including gigantic things, like whales)
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:02:15 UTC No. 16226332
>>16224547
That dig is in Africa and it was found by Europeans anon
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:04:13 UTC No. 16226337
extreme stuff
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:20:31 UTC No. 16226360
>>16226332
>it was found by Europeans
[citation needed]
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:40:27 UTC No. 16226435
>>16226360
>Spinophorosaurus is a genus of sauropod dinosaur that lived in what is now Niger during the Middle Jurassic period. The first two specimens were excavated in the 2000s by German and Spanish teams under difficult conditions
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:57:41 UTC No. 16226450
>>16226435
>excavated
An excavation is not a discovery. The discoverer is the person who first stumbles upon the fossil.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:15:34 UTC No. 16227247
Where's the Cool Rocks general? asking for a friend...
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:12:01 UTC No. 16228030
How in the absolute fuckity fuck do you dino bros confidently date things back millions of years?
I just cannot fathom how you would ever be able to test a hypothesis of a million year old dating point the first time.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:44:28 UTC No. 16228052
>>16228030
>How in the absolute fuckity fuck do you dino bros confidently date things back millions of years?
Okay, there is no absolute confidence, all dating techniques have margins of errors and uncertainties, like any other science.
There are several ways in which rocks can be dated, but the best and most accurate way is done through isotope geochnology, using residual radioactive isotope decay in igneous rocks.
Once you know the age of a particular rock, you can restrain, or bracket, the ages of other rocks through their geometric relationships (which one was laid on top of which, etc).
This guy does a good job at going through the different types of dating techniques, and avoids a wall of text on here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES0