Talk:Fossilization (palaeontology)

From Citizendium
Revision as of 13:21, 2 October 2007 by imported>Nereo Preto (→‎Carbonate preservation: ok)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The set of geological processes that convert organic remains into fossils. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Anthropology, Earth Sciences and Eduzendium [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Carbonate preservation

I am reading this article, which is indeed good - one of the finest among Earth Science I should say. I have some questions about carbonate preservation, though.

  • Ideal conditions for carbonate preservation are normally found in organic-rich shelf sediments
Why organic-rich? Organic matter decay usually lower the pH, leading to dissolution. Or, do you mean "rich in living organisms" which shells may be fossilized? If so, this concept could be expressed more clearly.
  • Sulfate reduction is required for cementation to occur
Not sure about that. Do you have a reference for this? Note that seawater is naturally supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate. Also, cementation in continental environments (e.g., caves, travertines) do not need sulphur to take place.

Just two minor notes. Keep on going with the good job! --Nereo Preto 09:37, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I saw the changes. Thanks, great job! --Nereo Preto 13:21, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

Overview

Another note. Could you add some lines in the overview where you explain the steps one dead part should pass through to get fossilized? Like, deposition, burial, diagenesis... I believe this is important, because there are terms used in the text (e.g., diagenesis, but you may also want to write about biostratinomy or taphonomy somewhere) which need to be defined. (BTW, parhaps, there are such lines already - I admit I couldn't find the time to read all text carefully...) --Nereo Preto 09:43, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Good job

Good job, Natasha. I wonder, however--will we have another article, with a different focus, titled fossil? The title, and the article so far, describes mainly the process. Will it concern only the process, or will it concern fossils generally speaking? If so you should link the first instance of fossil. --Larry Sanger 12:11, 27 September 2007 (CDT)