[meteorite-list] "Fossil" as a 17th century term for excavatedmeteorite?

From: Chris Peterson <clp_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:11:53 -0700
Message-ID: <01e101c83517$3adbc360$0a01a8c0_at_bellatrix>

I can't answer when, but I do think that using "fossil" as an adjective
applied to ancient meteorites is perfectly acceptable. In geology (and
other sciences) it usually means anything preserved from an earlier
geologic age, not necessarily something living. "Fossil meteorite" is as
valid as "fossil water". It is when using "fossil" as a noun that you
would be on thinner ice, since that seems reserved for a remnant of an
organism.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "chris aubeck" <caubeck at gmail.com>
To: "Chauncey Walden" <clwaldeniii at comcast.net>
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] "Fossil" as a 17th century term for
excavatedmeteorite?


> Hi list,
>
> Can anyone tell me when the word "fossil" was first used to describe
> meteorites of this kind?
>
> The use of the term to refer to obtaining anything by digging comes
> from the early 17th century, its use with chiefly organic remains a
> century later (1736). I was wondering whether the word, in the field
> of meteorites, had come to us from before 1736.
>
> Fossil: 1619, "obtained by digging" (adj.), from Fr. fossile, from L.
> fossilis "dug up," from fossus, pp. of fodere "to dig," from PIE base
> *bhedh- "to dig, pierce."
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=fossil&searchmode=none
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2007 5:48 PM, Chauncey Walden <clwaldeniii at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Dean, since the loose definition of "fossil" is any evidence of
>> former
>> life, obviously a meteorite, well, most;-), cannot be a fossil.
>> Paleo,
>> or "old", is the better term, and in the case in discussion
>> represents a
>> meteorite that has fallen in past times to the extent of having been
>> incorporated into what became a geologic formation and, in some
>> cases,
>> weathered out again. Your confusion seems to be between
>> fossilization,
>> or the preservation of any evidence of former life (like a basically
>> unaltered mammoth tusk in the Artic), and petrification, or the
>> replacement or pereservation of material by the introduction of
>> silica,
>> like petrified wood. The interesting thing, is that in well preserved
>> petrified wood the cellulose can remain. The silica can be dissolved
>> out
>> and the cellulose structure captured and studied, even to the extent
>> of
>> taking biologic stains.
Received on Sun 02 Dec 2007 02:11:53 PM PST