JPT No. 4 – A quick method for collecting modern small-scale ichnological and sedimentological structures

Thomas A. Stidham¹ and Jane Mason²

¹  Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, 3258 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843-3258, USA. e-mail: furcula@mail.bio.tamu.edu

²  Division of Vertebrate Paleontology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Dickinson Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7800, USA e-mail: jmason@flmnh.ufl.edu

ABSTRACT 

We describe a method for collecting recent superficial sedimentary structures, such as ripples, tool marks, and trackways. The surface first is consolidated using one of a variety of materials (acrylic, Butvar, or dust hardener), and then reinforced using cellulose acetate and collected. Sediment grains and areas of sediment surface can be excised after collection and cleaned for detailed study. This method is useful on a variety of sediment sizes, and it is inexpensive and relatively quick to implement.

INTRODUCTION

Modern trackways and other ichnological traces are fundamental tools used to research fossil tracks and sedimentary structures, including ripples and tool marks. However, commonly used methods of collecting modern footprints include the laborious use of plaster or latex (Goodwin and Chaney, 1994). Both of these methods are inadequate to accurately record traces on unconsolidated substrates without crushing the print or otherwise distorting the trace or structure. In addition, neither of these methods consistently and accurately records details of the substrate’s sedimentology, including grain size and sorting. These features of the sediment may influence the formation of an ichnological trace or sedimentary structure. In order to circumvent some of the problems with these other methods, we have developed a technique that records small-scale surficial sedimentary structures with little, if any, distortion, requiring less labor, and preserving more data. It is similar to the use of acetate molds in other areas of paleontology (Darrah, 1936; Rigby and Clark, 1965).

JPT No. 3 – Stone-splitters and expansive demolition agents in vertebrate paleontological excavations

Mateus, O. and Araújo, R.

CICEGe, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Quinta da Torre, P-2829-516 Caparica, PORTUGAL; and Museu da Lourinhã, Rua João Luis de Moura, 2530-157 Lourinhã, Portugal; omateus@fct.unl.pt and paradoxides@gmail.com

ABSTRACT 

Two techniques (stone-splitters and demolition agents) are revealed to be efficient methods for breaking large stone blocks in extreme paleontological excavation. In certain conditions – where security factors, permission issues, terrain conditions, rock properties are problematic – the traditional methods for breaking large rock blocks cannot be applied (e.g. crane trucks or explosives).  Using an expansive demolition agent or stone-splitters after drilling equidistant holes not only allows a cheap, quick and safe solution but also permits precise removal of up to 9 ton blocks.

Stone-splitters are a three-part tool that when inserted linearly and equidistantly along a brittle rock mass cause a precise fracture.

INTRODUCTION

Some paleontological excavations require the removal of massive overburden composed of hard rock bodies. Collecting in such conditions often requires the use of explosives (that could damage the fossils) or heavy machinery. Moreover, explosives and heavy machinery (e.g. bulldozers, crane trucks) may not be a solution due to security factors, permission issues, terrain conditions, and rock properties. On the one hand, crane trucks are not always able to access the fossil sites and explosives are also avoided due to high accident risk, the need of specific training, requirement of formal permissions, and the danger of damaging the fossils. Due to several constraints, some rocks and layers have to be removed by hand, using a pneumatic or electric jackhammer, which is time-consuming, causes rapid equipment deterioration, and is physically exhausting.

JPT No. 2 – Dinosaur frauds, hoaxes and “frankensteins”: how to distinguish fake and genuine vertebrate fossils

Mateus, O.¹; Overbeeke, M.² and Rita, F.³

1- Dept. of Earth Sciences (CICEGe-FCT), New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal & Museu da Lourinhã, Rua João Luis de Moura, 2530-157 Lourinhã, Portugal. omateus@fct.unl.pt

2- National Natural History Museum Naturalis, Leiden, The Netherlands & Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.overbeeke@hotmail.com

3- Clínica Montepio, Caldas da Rainha, Portugal. fjrita@netvisao.pt

ABSTRACT 

Dinosaurs and other fossils have been artificially enhanced, or totally forged, to increase their commercial value. The most problematic forgeries to detect are based on original fossils that are artificially assembled. Several techniques are suggested for detecting hoaxes: detailed visual examination, chemical analysis, X-ray or CT-scan, and ultraviolet light.

It is recommended that museums and paleontological researchers do not purchase and/or trade fossils lacking clear provenience information. Exceptions to that general rule should be closely examined using techniques described herein.

INTRODUCTION

The high economic value of rare fossil specimens has fuelled their market value, firing the imagination of fossil dealers and collectors and increasing demand for fraudulent specimens. The production of fake fossil specimens is particularly common in poorly developed areas where fossil trading can represent one of the few ways to achieve economical survival. For example, China and Morocco are known to produce both genuine and fraudulent fossils, making the detection of fake all the more difficult (Dalton, 2000, 2004a, 2004b, Milner et al. 2001, Padian, 2000). Because complete specimens are rare, they command higher price. For this reason, forgers often find it profitable to join multiple specimens in order to assemble a fraudulent single skeleton that appears complete. Padian (2000) discusses in some detail the problematic nature of fossil trade and forgery with respect science and education in the United States.

A subject of shame and embarrassment for the researchers involved in their study, certain frauds have been divulged to the public. For example, the famous “Piltdown Man”, a forgery merging a modern human skull with the jaw of an orangutan, was advanced as a single specimen of a putative primitive human ancestor that fooled anthropologists for decades (Weiner, 1955).

One of the most conspicuous recent examples of fraudulent composite dinosaur fossils is the famous Archaeoraptor specimen from the Liaoning Province of China. This “discovery” was the subject of coverage by media sources including National Geographic and Nature (Rowe et al., 2001; Sloan, 1999; Zhou et al., 2002). Careful examination subsequently revealed that the specimen represents at least two and up to five, separate specimens that were fraudulently merged to assemble a single “individual” (Zhou et al., 2002).

Fossil frauds are usually forged to obtain not only profit, but also publicity. Cunning forgers may put much training and effort to render hoaxes as realistic as possible. Some forged fossils are fantastically verisimilar to real fossil specimens and may easily fool an incautious fossil-buyer.

The aim of this paper is to give the method of fraud recognition. The goal is to discuss a methodology to detect frauds, and not to discuss a buying setting, ethical behaviours or even to recommend how to buy fossils.