Re: fossils do not need rapid burial

Glenn Morton (GRMorton@gnn.com)
Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:38:34

David Tyler wrote:
>>From my memory of this article, the rate of covering of this whale
>was totally inadequate to prevent the disintegration of the skeleton.
>Even in a depositional environment where there are no currents to
>erode or disperse the bones, they still show signs of becoming
>completely disintegrated before the sediment could possibly cover
>them. This is a paper which SUPPORTS the requirement for rapid
>burial as one ingredient to successful fossilisation.
>
The skeleton has been there for around 30 years and is not covered nor is it
decayed. National Public Radio the other day had an interview with an author
of a book entitled Aftermath. He claimed that there were still 160,000
skeletons in uniforms from World War I in the northern part of the Russian
plains. I am going to have to get that book. That is 70 years and the
skeletons haven't disappeared. They are awaiting slow burial. :-)

>I don't understand this exchange. I thought that this was non-
>controversial now that local catastrophes are acceptable to the
>geologic community. There may be a few exceptions to the general
>principle, but the taphonomy studies with which I am acquainted all
>show that rapid covering of the animal, plant or trace is a basic
>necessity for fossilisation.
>
local catastrophes are OK but not needed for everything.
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm