Paleonet: "Living fossils" ... do we have a single definition? OR are there many definitions (as many as paleontologists)?

Bruno RC Granier brc-granier at orange.fr
Thu Mar 8 08:38:16 GMT 2007


How close are "living fossils" to "fossils"? 


See for instance:

Proof that Lingula (Brachiopoda) is not a living-fossil, and emended diagnoses of the Family Lingulidae, by Emig, Christian C.
Lingula is often considered a "living-fossil" based on its supposed lengthy morphological conservatism owing to its absence of evolution, and its remarkable survival for more than 550 M.Y. This conclusion is based on the typical apparently unchanged "linguliform" shape of the shell. However the taxa of the family Lingulidae show morphological evolutionary changes despite the fact that the group appears panchronic among the Recent Brachiopoda. Consequently, traditional opinion that Lingula is a "living-fossil" should be rejected. Diagnoses of the Family Lingulidae and of its three genera are herewith emended.
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2003_L01_CCE/index.html

> Message du 07/03/07 18:04
> De : "Nikolaus Malchus" <n.malchus at gmx.net>
> A : "PaleoNet" <paleonet at nhm.ac.uk>
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: Paleonet: Known First as Fossils - Clarification
> 
> HI Carl,
> 
> The term "living fossil" does not necessarily imply that it was first found 
> alive and then fossil matches were found.  Original reference to the 
> fossil organism may be much older than to the living counterpart and this 
> should be easily seen by comparing the references given in books on living 
> fossils, ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Niko.  
> 
> >             
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:37:05 -0500
> > Von: Carl Mehling <cosm at amnh.org>
> > An: paleonet at nhm.ac.uk, vrtpaleo at usc.edu
> > Betreff: Paleonet: Known First as Fossils - Clarification
> > 
> >             Hi All,
> >  Some have suggested that I look into “living fossils.” The 
> > examples I am looking for are not necessarily “living 
> > fossils.” To me, that term describes taxa whose lineages have an 
> > extremely long geological records and which persist today in basically 
> > the same form. This would be things like Latimeria, cockroaches, Lingula, 
> > lycopods, etc. But I am only looking for taxa that were first known as 
> > fossils and then were subsequently found extant. This would include 
> > things like the XXX known >from 4 million year old fossils and then later 
> > found alive today, as well as things like coelacanths, but not things 
> > like horseshoe crabs. I also wouldn’t consider the XXX a 
> > “living fossil” because of its relatively recent oldest 
> > fossil occurrence.
> >  Best,
> >  Carl
> > 
> >             
> >              Carl Mehling
> >  Fossil Amphibian, Reptile, and Bird Collections
> >  Division of Paleontology 
> >  American Museum of Natural History
> >  Central Park West @79th Street
> >  New York, NY  10024
> >  (212) 769-5849
> >  Fax: (212) 769-5842
> >  cosm at amnh.org
> >  
>         
> -- 
> ********************************************
> Nikolaus Malchus
> PhD (Geology-Paleontology)
> Dept. de Geologia/Unitat Paleontologia, Universitat
> Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus, Edifici Cs
> 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Catalonia,
> SPAIN; Tel x34-93-581-1464 / Fax x34-93-581-1263
> ********************************************
> http://www.senckenberg.de/odes/06-16.htm
> International Congress on Bivalvia, July 2006
> published abstracts, field guides and posters
> ******************************************************
> 
> 
> >
> [ (pas de nom de fichier) (0.1 Ko) ]





More information about the Paleonet mailing list