Crinoid anatomy |
A true rock hound and/or fossil collector will tell you that fossil identification can be... complex. Anyone who's ever tried to tell the difference between the leaves of two different species of maple tree can tell you that the differences look pretty insignificant to a beginner. If all you want to know, however, is whether the tree is a maple, a cypress, or a walnut; the differences are big enough for an amateur. Shoop's approach is at a similarly "gross" level... or would be if she'd gotten it right.
Here's some of Megan's bullbleep:
- "It is the largest of these early many-celled organisms that scientists still use to compare fossils and place them in the evolutionary timeline."
- "Most circular fossils... are not usually perfect spheres, but have rounded tops and bottoms and rounded edges. These are usually crinoid columnals, a type of prehistoric coral."
- "There are variations including star impressions in the circles’ centers, lines radiating outward from the center and small holes going through the edge of the circle. These holes were probably similar to the sap system in trees, delivering nutrients to different parts of the coral."
- "There are two types of c-shaped fossils. These fossils are three-dimensional and puffy with one rounded edge and one nearly flat edge."
- "There should be two sides to these fossils. If the sides are identical, the fossil is an ancient bivalve, or clam. If they are dissimilar, the creature was a brachiopod, an ancient cousin to the clam. "
- "Small spiral shapes, less than 3 cm across, are probably ancient gastropods, or snails. Snails have always been small, unlike the prehistoric ancestors of other animals."
- "Larger coils, 5 cm or larger in length, which are pointed and long rather than flat, are probably cephalopod remains. These are the ancient precursors to squid and octopi. These ancient creatures had shells, unlike most modern cephalopods..."
- WTF does this even mean? That only large fossils are useful? That would come as a surprise to micropaleontologists everywhere!
- A) The entire concept of "There should be two sides to these fossils..." confuses the heck out of us. B) Crinoids are not corals; they are echinoderms!
- Here, Shoop concatenates her reference's description of crinoid columnals with the next section, horn corals. Once again, crinoids are not corals!
- We have no idea what "C-shaped" means to Megan...
- Megan's grasp of geometry seems as tenuous as her grasp of paleontology. Also, brachiopods and mollusks are not "ancient cousins," not to mention that there are brachiopods alive today.
- Herein lies a problem with using just one limited reference: in Kentucky rocks, there aren't any large gastropods. If, however, Kentucky had more Cretaceous rocks, you might find a Turritella fossil the size of your hand!
- Shoop's geometry problems again: what does Larger coils... which are pointed and long rather than flat mean? BTW, if we're being pedantic (as we so often are), the proper spelling of the plural of octopus is "octopuses" or "octopods."
copyright © 2018-2022 scmrak
SI - PALEONTOLOGY
No comments:
Post a Comment