Investigating Fossils. Wilson J. Wall

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Investigating Fossils - Wilson J. Wall страница 15

Investigating Fossils - Wilson J. Wall

Скачать книгу

(1832). Principles of Geology. London: John Murray.

      11 Mace, G. (1998). Getting the measure of extinction. People & the Planet 7 (4): 9.

      12 Moyal, A. (2004). Platypus. Baltimore, USA: The John Hopkins University Press.

      13 Oskam, C.L., Haile, J., McLay, E. et al. (2010). Fossil avian eggshell preserves ancient DNA. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B 277 (1690): 1991–2000.

      14 Plot, R. (1705). The Natural History of Oxford‐Shire: Being An Essay Towards the Natural History of England, 2e. London: C. Brome.

      15 Thomson, K. (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

      16 Vaux, F., Morgan‐Richards, M., Daly, E.E., and Trewick, S.A. (2019). Tuatara and a new morphometric dataset for Rhynchocephalia: comments on Herrera‐Flores et al. Palaeontology 62 (2): 321–334.

      Part of the complex relationship which society has had over the centuries with fossils is at least in part associated with the conceptual problem of exactly how fossils are formed. It was not always assumed that these structures were plant or animal in origin, for a very good reason. From the earliest years of a monotheistic culture, the mortal remains were seen as disposable, epitomised by the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 where the funeral oratory includes the well‐known ‘earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust’ indicating almost by redundant usage that mortal remains will not survive in any shape or form. So it was naturally assumed that with this authority, everything would disappear, and if nothing remained, those stone‐like inclusions within rocks could not possibly be animal or plant in origin.

      Although inadvertently, the Book of Common Prayer reflects something which should be obvious; that fossils are rare. Looking at this from the other direction, it implies that the process of fossilisation is a rare event, and consequently the chances of a specific plant or animal being fossilised are vanishingly small. It took a long time before we understood enough about chemistry that we could have a reasonable idea of how fossilisation takes place.

      Fossilisation is a result of a set of conditions which have to be just right to work. It does not necessarily work perfectly every time, and the final product will not always be made of the same material. As we will see later in this chapter, the processes which create fossils vary considerably in detail, which is why fossils also vary so much in their structure and appearance.

      Before the advent of geochemistry, first described by Christian Schönbein in 1838 (Kragh 2008), and for many years afterwards, there was little by way of a clear idea of changes that can take place in the chemistry of rocks and fossils. It was for many years a simple study of chemical composition of rocks, rather than changes in composition of rocks. This lack of clarity of what might be taking place in the fossilisation process meant that any attempt to describe the process was really a descriptive process of observed events. This was the situation when Charles Lyell (1832) was writing Principles of Geology. In grappling with the questions of fossil formation, Lyell expends considerable effort in explaining how various phenomena can result in biological material of all sorts and can become frozen in time. The explanations all stop at the point of ‘inhumation’, but have an interesting historical context, with descriptions of many examples. These range from inundations by rivers and landslips, such as the draining of a lake in Vermont, USA, in 1810, and the burying of villages when the mountain of Piz in Italy fell in 1772, through to blown sand in Africa. The examples cover many different natural causes of burial, by way of explaining how plant and animal material could move in to the geological strata. At the same time, there is no attempt to describe a mechanism by which this buried material could be changed from biological material, essentially organic, to stone, essentially inorganic, while still retaining some structure of the original organism.

      There are exceptions to the normal process of fossilisation, which may not at first even appear to be fossilisation in the popular imagination. These are pickling, freezing, amber and tar pits.

      Amber is generally from the Cretaceous period or later, and is mostly composed of mixed tree resins which are soluble in non‐polar solvents such as alcohols and ethers. Also present are some resins which are not soluble in the same solvents or are of very low solubility. Most of the resin is made up of long‐chain hydrocarbons with groups that are eminently suitable for polymerisation. It is the natural process of polymerisation which causes the change from highly viscous liquid to solid. The process carries on within the solid form and eventually produces a substance that we would recognise as the brittle solid, amber. It should not be considered so unusual that inclusions are found within amber as the amount we know of is really quite large and some of the individual pieces far bigger than we can imagine being produced by modern trees. Precisely why this is so remains a mystery, but so far the largest known piece of amber resides at the Natural History Museum in London and weighs 15.25 kg. To produce such a large volume of resin and then to have it preserved is quite extraordinary. It was originally considered that amber was an amorphous material, which considering its origin and chemistry is a quite reasonable assumption. More recently, it has become apparent through X‐ray diffraction studies that in some samples there is a crystalline structure.

Скачать книгу