Beginners' textbook ideas

[Joe Botting]

Hi all,
This isn't technically teaching, but this is probably the best place for it. It's been suggested recently by two different people that we should try to put together a helpful, comprehensive guide to starting out in fossil hunting. There are a few essays on the sorts of themes that would be useful on the main site:

www.asoldasthehills.org/Introduction%201.html

but this obviously is a very small beginning to a project like this. So, it might be best for me to keep writing essays, and eventually fit them together into something potentially publishable. What I need from you, whatever level you're at, are thoughts about what you personally would find useful. Do any of the essays up already need bits clarified? What other subjects would you like to see covered? Would a book of this type, explaining things like how to recognise pseudofossills, how to identify fossils, etc., be useful?

Thanks in advance,
Joe

[Joe testing guest access]

There you go - just proving you don't even have to register to post on this board!



Joe

[reighan]

As you know, I'm a beginner in all aspects of this, but I seem to have a knack for pattern perception. My situation is probably different from most, as I've stumbled upon a large volume of fossilliferous material in glacial drift and am trying to learn a range of things in reasonable enough depth to make identifications as well as draw some conclusions on origins. So far, with your assistance, I know I am dealing with Carboniferous and probably Cretaceous stuff. I suspect that if I were to look for other things I might find them. So, I need quite a lot of foscused information that spans wide ranges, and is sufficiently technical but presented understandably. (I don't ask for much, eh?) The answers you have been giving me ('Introductions') have actually been meeting those needs, though. The Introduction essays I've read so far have been appropriate as well.

I would love to have a book (or, more realistically, a series of books) that delivers information in the form you have been using to respond but includes extensive glossary-format information for use in translating it.

I'm having trouble explaining what I mean. I just know that I understand a lot more from a fluent sentence or two than I would from a lengthy explanation that interrupted the thought to define every conclusion and bit of terminology used. But I need access to reasonably detailed definitions and descriptions to avoid further 'mis-learning' and 'mis-applying'. For example, possibly because of a hit-or-miss search for information through whatever books and web information I could get, I've been assuming that (among other things) I wouldn't find a fossil in a metamorphic rock. That doesn't seem to be the case with my pygidium in sandstone. But, then, I hadn't figured on degrees of metamorphism, not that I can actually be sure of what is metamorphic or igneous yet. Simplistically, I guess I thought the druze and a fossil were mutually exclusive. And, for whatever reason, I didn't think I was supposed to find a trilobite on my beach.

I guess all that is leading up to a response of: 'Pseudofossils' is a good place to start, or, more inclusively, 'Is it a fossil?', with enough information to rule out the other possiblilities. Before getting the crinoid impressions positively identified as such, I'd wondered whether they were examples of the pictures of dolomitic structures I'd seen somewhere (and can't find now) formed either by weathering or cooling. Some weathered rocks look pretty structured to me. Modern borers seem to like fossilliferous limestone better than nonfossilliferous limestone, which gets confusing. Is the 'rice grain' in one of the cavities of 'flint3' just another crystal of the mineral forming angular crystals in the same cavity? I can recognize the fine, black, fernlike pattern of dendritic manganese but am not sure about less-detailed patterns or other colours. (If the rock is weathered and you can't use a thin section and a microscope, how do you tell? Ditto, stromatolites.) Etc.

I think I would do best with line drawings plus photos of what something actually looks like in the field. Mike and I have independently decided the last thing I posted is probably a sponge. But I haven't been able to find either a photo or a line drawing of the structure that convinces me.

Guess that's enough for now. Sorry if it's muddled but it may give you some ideas. Hope it helps. And, thanks again for all the assistance so far!

Reighan

[Ormrod]

Using a collection of the essays from the main site as a basis for a shortish book is, I reckon a superb way of getting people hooked on the delights of fossilloligising. There are a variety of introductory textbooks about , but nothing that I have found that conveys a feeling of the complete experience of palaeontology whether one is a total beginner or have more experienced; thenearest perhaps being Richard Fortey's "Trilobite!" which conveys lots of information with a jolly good read. So perhaps an expansion of the essays together with lots of drawings - the faunal list is so helpful, together with a field guide of the area which could also reinforce the aspects of ethics and access.
Something about how the amateur can get involved and play a part which is a positive contribution to palaeontology as well as having a lot of fun and a deep sense of satisfaction - here I am speaking one hundred percent from my own experience, would be useful and might encourage people with holiday collections of fossils sitting at home, probably in a box, to have another close look at them and who knows what may pop up. I know I've said much of this already to Joe but would like to know if the other forum members feel similiarly.
Awaiting responses with interest, Tess

[Joe Botting]

Thanks to both for the suggestions and encouragment! The first thing I've done is start a glossary going:

www.asoldasthehills.org/glossary

which is barely a skeletal outline at the moment. On this one, I'll have to be guided by your good selves - let me have lists of words you're struggling with or would like precise definitions of, and I'll try to keep up with you!

The 'Is it a fossil?' idea does sound a good place to start, Reighan, and I'll try to rustle something up to that effect. Likewise, Ormrod, I can write something aimed at those who want to be involved in some 'real' palaeontology, but don't know where to start. Hopefully that would indeed be useful.

So - lists of words, please! And keep any other ideas coming (I can always save them up!

Cheers,
Joe

[reighan]

Hi, Joe

First a few reactions... I don't know whether you expanded the Introduction\Preservation essay, or if I simply got more from it because I've expanded my background. Either way, it works for me. I could use an expansion relating to finding things on a beach. There are pretty consistent instructions that the material should be soaked in water to remove salt, but the length of time varies from days to several weeks. Some sources specify distilled water, but it isn't clear whether tap water is lethal. (That's a lot of distilled water....) They say that soaking is particularly important with pyrite fossils, but a lot of my rocks contain a lot of iron, and water soaks don't exactly enhance them.

In the Glossary, the 'Flint' entry helps a lot Is it possible to do the same kind of entry with sandstone, limestone, etc., or maybe it isn't possible to focus as narrowly with them as it is with flint? If possible, I'd love to know how to tell Carboniferous limestone from some other limestone by sight (if the fossils weren't immediately visible).

I asked in another post about schist and gneiss. I guess I should add 'ash' to the request. Can the ashes contain fossils that aren't in nodules? And if they contain nodules, how do you know when to investigate them? I think I've asked a similar question in relation to flint. In one thread there are suggestions for choosing (limonite/sandstone?) nodules; do those descriptions apply to other types of nodules.

Some other terminology that might be useful, particulary if usage varies among sources. Most of these were available in field-guide-to-rocks glossaries, or even a dictionary, (and may fall outside the area where you'll have to focus) but it would be nice to have your interrelated definitions of them. Rock sizes - pebble, cobble, boulder; Glacial-deposit-related terms. (e.g., drift, deposit, till, moraine, scree...)

I've figured out 'clast/clastic', except for 'bioclast'. Are the organic inclusions microscopic, visible bits, and/or a complete beastie?

Well... That's a few, anyway...

Reighan

[Joe Botting]

Okey-dokey, that'll keep us going for a little bit, anyhow - thanks! We can certainly say something about each of those.

Only problem is, I'm off to Glasgow for a conference for the next few days, so these and the reaction to your extra photos (ta muchly again - some lovely little quartz crystals! will have to wait until probably the weekend, unless Lucy finds time for them. It'll be something to look forward to when I get back, anyway.

Cheers,
Joe

[reighan]

Hi, Joe

No rush... I have plenty of rocks to label, stash and photograph, plus a beachful to collect. ;D

If I'd read the stone-workers' forum's e-mailed digest before posting my questions, I would have known not to pose the sandstone and limestone question, at least not in the same form. But any hints on that subject will be greatly appreciated. (The digest included a link to short papers describing the formation stages of several types of building stone.)

Good journey!

Reighan

[Joe Botting]

Ok, I've added most of your selection of words from that post - except for the glacial terminology. There's no harm in putting them in there, by any means; I just will have to look up a fair few of those, so I'll do them all together at some point.
Hopefully I've sorted your bioclastic issues, at any rate...

BTW, good to hear that the preservation essay now works for you. I haven't changed it at all, so it must be your expanding knowledge that's done the trick!

Cheers,
Joe

[moldyolddough]

I always thought that a palaeontological equivalent of the Atlas of Rock Forming Minerals in Thin Section would go down well.....brought Petrology alive to me far more than Hatch Wells & Wells ever did - perhaps a high quality photograph on the right hand page, and a fully labelled up 1/2 size line drawing on the facing page, with 1/2 page discussion of range, stratigraphy, cladistics etc. Could even do it volume at a time.....starting with trilobites?......

[Joe Botting]

If only, Keith!
The problem is that there are only 10,000 or so known trilobite species... of course, it can be done for, say, the trilobites of the Yr Allt Formation (that would be a short one...), and this is what monographs are for. They, of course, are too technical for most readers, but they exist for a large number of groups from a large number of sequences or areas.

The only field guides I know of that are intermediate in scope between these and the "Rocks, Minerals and Fossils" books are the Palaeontological Association's Field Guides to Fossils. It's a relatively new series, and not for profit, so it relies on a dedicated group of individual specialists feeling it worth their while to write it.
www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=publications&page=66

If there's one you want done in particular, I guess we'll have to start lobbying! ;D

Have you got access to a nearby University library? If not, it might be worth thinking about to get your hands on the monographs, should you need them...
All the best,
Joe

[pj]

Hello,

I have a couple of suggestions that I would like help with even though I've been fossil hunting for just over a year. My main problem is a lack of geological knowledge. For example, I've learned that sedimentary rocks are the most fossiliferous, and of course their age will determine what sort of fossils they may contain. The thing I cannot get to grips with however is WHICH sedementary rocks will contain fossils, and which are you wasting your time looking at??? There are plenty of rock outcrops in my locality most of which seem to be some sort of mudstone or siltstone and will I definately find fossils in them, or is it a case of sheer luck? Much of Swansea is supposed to be on a bedrock of mud and silt stone (sedimentary rock) according to my geological survey map, but will I find fossils in rock outcrops in Swansea or not? I pass several outcrops in my car almost daily, and I so want to stop and have a good nose about, but before I do I want ensure I don't look an idiot.

In summary, just how do you tell which hills, mountains, outcrops, rocks, scree slopes, et al will be fossiliferous and which are to be avoided. What is the secret??

Many thanks
Phil.

[Joe Botting]

Hi Phil - interesting questions! Alas without an easy answer... but the short answer is: experience!

To be honest, you don't know until you have a look. It's easy to make generalisations, but they all fail in the end. Usually, though, mudstones and shales are pretty much guaranteed to have fossils in somewhere, limestones almost certainly will but they may be hard to find, and sandstones are a lot more hit-and-miss.

What you really want to look for is not just the broad rock type, but what environment it represents. Mudstones laid down in semi-arid, salty lakes, for example, are not so likely to have anything in because there won't have been much living there... but if there is a fossil or two, it might well be unusual. Muds from flood plains will have burrows and plants but not much else... and so on. To get to that level of understanding as a general principle takes a lot more work, and involves things like examining the shapes of ripples, and interpreting a local sequence as a while rather than a series of individual beds. But there is a more immediate way to get to grips with it...

Many palaeontologists (amateur and professional) end up specialising in one area, and getting to know the rocks there intimately. The precise sequence of rocks will vary from place to place, but locally it will all be part of one environmental history. In the Carboniferous, the shallow, clear seas of the Carb Limestone were occasionally inundated by muds, and eventually buried by the vast river swamp of the Coal Measures. Within the limestones, there will be patches with reefs and patches between, all through the succession. The environments of the coal swamps were much more varied, and you can track the evolution of plant communities with enough information.

To start with, look at everything. Any small outcrops by roads, in streams, on beaches... it doesn't matter. Look at them, and make it a good look. Make notes, draw logs of sections to help you understand what's going on, and for comparing from place to place. You'll quite quickly learn to recognise which are likely to be productive rocks for fossils, and which aren't, even if you can't say exactly why.

One important thing to bear in mind: the rocks with abundant shelly fossils are often not the most interesting. The fossils depend not just on what was living there, but also what happened to it when it died, and afterwards. "Typical" fossil localities can be great to collect standard fossils easily, but after a while they get a bit boring. It's the odd little outcrops of something different that often provide the excitement!

So, tell us what's in your roadside outcrops, then!
Joe

[pj]

Many thanks Joe,

This is a genuinely informative and interesting response. I have learned that geology is a vitally important part of fossil collecting, and your answer has confirmed this without doubt. I will check on some of the road side outcrops for fossiliferousness, and I promise to let you know if I find anything.

This is a fantastic web-site, and I'm looking forward to sharing any finds and information with you. Fingers crossed!!

[Joe Botting]

You're very welcome, Phil. This is exactly the sort of practical stuff that doesn't get covered in guidebooks or courses, and it's part of what we set the site up for. It's really good to hear you're finding it all useful. Since it's gone down so well, I might well write this one up into a "proper" essay.

Looking forward to the report... when the rain stops!