Scioly.org

amerikestrel wrote:

gneissisnice wrote: You could, you know, read this thread.
Or check my awesometastic fossils wiki.

I did skim it, but I didn't see any websites.

And yes, you're wiki is awesome.

Thanks =)
And I meant that the thread would cover the basics, not that there are links on it. Anyway, there should also be links at soinc.org.

In the wiki, permineralization and petrification are listed to be the same thing. But isn't permineralization when minerals fill up spaces in the organism, while petrification is when the organism is completely replace by minerals (specifically silica)? That's also what wikipedia says...

amerikestrel wrote:In the wiki, permineralization and petrification are listed to be the same thing. But isn't permineralization when minerals fill up spaces in the organism, while petrification is when the organism is completely replace by minerals (specifically silica)? That's also what wikipedia says...

I would trust what wikipedia says...maybe check another reputable source, but it is probably right. Still, you can see how they get confused I suppose, overall, nice work with the wiki (gneiss-person...? haha sorry)

Replacement is when the fossil's original material is completely replaced by a different mineral.
Permineralization [as you said] is when minerals precipitate into the pores of an organism.

From some quick research, it seems that many people disagree about what petrification is. However, most seem to agree with Wikipedia that Petrification is Permineralization but a step further: the original material of the organism is replaced by minerals.

jazzy009 wrote:

amerikestrel wrote:In the wiki, permineralization and petrification are listed to be the same thing. But isn't permineralization when minerals fill up spaces in the organism, while petrification is when the organism is completely replace by minerals (specifically silica)? That's also what wikipedia says...

I would trust what wikipedia says...maybe check another reputable source, but it is probably right. Still, you can see how they get confused I suppose, overall, nice work with the wiki (gneiss-person...? haha sorry)

Did I say that? My bad, i probably meant petrification and petrifaction, which, to my knowledge, are basically the same thing.
And thanks Jazzy =)

I fixed it in the wiki, so it should be good now.

Also, I turned each fossilization method into a separate header. My reasoning:

1. I plan on writing more in-depth information sometime in the near future, and it would make more sense if each type of fossil has it's own header.

2. If you are at the top of the wiki and you want to read about permineralization, then it would only take you one click in the table of contents to get there.

Sorry about the double post, but...

Is it a waste of time to use your field guide extensively if you have info about each genus in your binder?

amerikestrel wrote: Is it a waste of time to use your field guide extensively if you have info about each genus in your binder?

Not necessarily. My binder has just about everything my field guide says, so as long as I'm organized, I won't need the field guide (or my partner will use it). You should definitely learn to use both the guide and the binder extensively.

Now my question:
How do you distinguish between a mastodon and a mammuth? Not the teeth, but an actual skeleton?

Mammuth:
http://donsmaps.com/images3/mammothskeleton.jpg

Mastodon
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... stodon.jpg

By the looks of it, The mastodon has like more finger-like feet thingys, while the mammuth has more hoof-like feet.

The mammuth has more curved tusks and the astodon has..well, less curved tusks

The mammuths tail is longer (?)

The skull of the mastodon is smaller than the skull of the mammuth

The mammuth is bigger in general

The rib cages are different...yeah...

soobsession wrote: finger-like feet thingys

The technical term for those is "toes."