Is The 30,000 Years Old Kauri Wood Classified As Fossil Wood Too?

[Iskandar]

Ancient kauri wood from New Zealand preserved in the swamp peat for up to 45,000 years old. Fossil definition, any material older than 10,000 years old is fossil. Ancient Kauri wood still retain its woody characteristics and looks very recent wood in appearance. DO THE ANCIENT KAURI WOOD CALLED FOSSIL WOOD TOO?

[THobern]

It's a semantic argument, not that these can't be useful, but one that doesn't really help make anything about fossilisation any clearer. The 10,000 year cut-off is arbitrary, and encompasses a wide range of materials in varying states and types of preservation. Fossilisation covers a continuous, broad category of processes, not discrete, binary classifications. The Kauri wood is what it is, and to class it as a fossil or not, doesn't reveal anything about the remains or their significance.

Edited June 18, 2010 by THobern

[tracer]

yes it's a fossil

[Auspex]

Were it in my collection, I would call it an extraordinary fossil

[Rødvig]

That's some large pieces of wood they pull out of the ground

Mikkel

[siteseer]

Ancient kauri wood from New Zealand preserved in the swamp peat for up to 45,000 years old. Fossil definition, any material older than 10,000 years old is fossil. Ancient Kauri wood still retain its woody characteristics and looks very recent wood in appearance. DO THE ANCIENT KAURI WOOD CALLED FOSSIL WOOD TOO?

I would call kauri wood a fossil too as it is Pleistocene in age. The remains of organisms from the Holocene tend to be called "subfossils." Part of the confusion comes from "fossilization" being used interchangeably with "mineralization." Some early Holocene remains may be better mineralized than some Cretaceous fossils but I think it's a matter of anything prehistoric ie. Pleistocene or older being a fossil. Anything from historic times is a subfossil. It can be confusing because that means some of the most recent remains of sabercats, mammoths, and dire wolves would be considered subfossils because some populations lived 9000 years ago or even more recently.

The 10,000 year cut-off for the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary is arbitrary and lacks an official stratographic definition. It appears geologists simply agreed to go with "a nice round number" as a working definition until a more scientifically-substantial marker is agreed upon (Bell et al., 2004).

Bell, C.J., E.L. Lundelius Jr., (co-chairmen), A.D. Barnosky, R.W. Graham, E.H. Lindsay, D.R. Ruez Jr.. H.A. Semken Jr., S.D. Webb, and R.J. Zakrzewski. 2004. The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. In M.O. Woodburne (ed.). Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. Columbia University Press.

[seanm]

Sure is a fossil. Bog oak from the UK and Ireland dates from 12000 years and is classed as fossil wood but unlike the kauri wood it is almost black in colour due to the tanins and is hard as steel so is a great choice for wood carving.

[Scylla]

The next question will come up when we find living organisms like trees(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko), fungi, or corals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_coral) that beat the 10,000 year limit and we'll have to redefine the phrase "living fossil"

[Nicholas]

I'm very much in favor of the 10,000 year rule, if it meets that age criteria (as arbitrary as it may be) to me it is a Fossil. Perhaps a different type of fossil because there are a variety of cases where mineralization hasn't set in (in varying degrees).

So in my small opinion, yes.

[Stonebreaker]

All I know is that I payed almost $100 per LF to do a set of end tbles and a coffee table and then all it was after resawing it was a really a 1/16" thick vaneer. But boy did that stuff really pop after I got it sanded and finished. It looked like it was almost metal with light coming from within.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Stonebreaker

[MOROPUS]

Does this classic Aussie Thalassina sp. could be considered fossil or subfossil? Most of them, are early Holocene in age, but they are highly mineralized:

[THobern]

The next question will come up when we find living organisms like trees(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko), fungi, or corals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_coral) that beat the 10,000 year limit and we'll have to redefine the phrase "living fossil"

Pando is far older than 10,000.

[siteseer]

Does this classic Aussie Thalassina sp. could be considered fossil or subfossil? Most of them, are early Holocene in age, but they are highly mineralized:

I have been told that all those are Holocene. I forgot the age in years but believe it was between 5000 and 8000 years old. Those are subfossils. Someone told me about the deposit years ago but I can't recall why so many lobsters are found and so little of anything else.

[MOROPUS]

I have been told that all those are Holocene. I forgot the age in years but believe it was between 5000 and 8000 years old. Those are subfossils. Someone told me about the deposit years ago but I can't recall why so many lobsters are found and so little of anything else.

Yes, and they are very expensive for what they are! I`ve seen them from a range of 45 to 100 euros each! Even in Australia, I saw a shop in Sydney who sell them, at a price of 65 AUdollars.

Do they come from the northern part of Australia? When I was there, I discover some "fossilized" beaches (still on the sea level) with fossil inclusions. At first, I didn`t know the age of them, then I discover in the web, that were only few thousand years!

[Iskandar]

Yes, and they are very expensive for what they are! I`ve seen them from a range of 45 to 100 euros each! Even in Australia, I saw a shop in Sydney who sell them, at a price of 65 AUdollars.

Do they come from the northern part of Australia? When I was there, I discover some "fossilized" beaches (still on the sea level) with fossil inclusions. At first, I didn`t know the age of them, then I discover in the web, that were only few thousand years!

Interesting..the Thalassina looks like as old as Miocene fossil. Its very unusual formation. Is the mineralized subfossil do only occur in Australia? Are they siderite/carbonate matrix?