Talk:Lagerstätte

message: Big Bone Lick State Park preserves the site of a deposit of Pleistocene megafauna fossils. I recall reading somewhere (sorry, I can't find the reference) that it ranks second as such in North America, after Rancho La Brea, California. Does it rate a mention in a list of Lagerstätten, or categorization as such? Teratornis 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this perennial schoolboy favorite, though a site where fossils have been retrieved, is not a lagerstätte. --Wetman 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, why not? Insufficient number of fossils? Insufficient diversity? The fact that many or possibly most of the fossils originally in the site are now in museums around the world? Why doesn't  explain the arbitrary distinction to the schoolboys who constitute a large percentage of Wikipedia readers? (Incidentally, I feel cheated to have passed through childhood during the before time, as in before Wikipedia.) Perhaps some schoolboys would not understand why Big Bone fails the definition of : La Brea is an example of a concentration Lagerstätten, because it is noted for its large quantity of fossils. The tar pits formed concentration traps in which organisms became trapped and died. Other examples of concentration Lagerstätten include fissure fills, cave deposits and bone beds. As Wikipedia is to be written for the nonexpert, the distinction bears explaining. Perhaps a section could be added: "Fossil deposits that don't make the cut, and why" or something to that effect. Along with an audio file of derisive laughter from Eric Cartman, to drive the point home. --Teratornis 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I merely meant "schoolboy favorite" as in that perennial schoolboy favorite pope, Pope Hilarius: with their contracted cultural horizons, today's schoolboys doubtless have other favorites, closer to home. Or jokes are harsher and more violent.  At any rate, not every bone bed with dramatic megafauna is a lagerstätte: La Brea also trapped pollen. That should be made clearer in the article: a lagerstätte offers a snapshot, frozen in time, of a paleoecology. --Wetman 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Seilacher himself uses the term pretty inclusively; neither exceptional preservation nor a lack of time averaging is needed to qualify as a Lagerstätte.  See my comments below. -- DE 72.48.177.50 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, qualify? 

message: Does this also qualify, it is quite famous for the fossils it contains. Enlil Ninlil 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think. If La Brea Tar Pits form a lagerstätte, don't these less familiar caves, too? Let's wait to hear what others think. --Wetman 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think anyone would argue with you if you called it a konsentrat-lagerstatten.  I don't think it's quite a case of "qualifying"! Verisimilus T 13:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Naracoorte Caves National Park]]

message: Ghost Ranch, though it is linked, does not have an article on its palaeo. It should have. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto Karatau. All names not linked to a palaeo article should be red-linked by name-change, eg. "Ghost Ranch formation". Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Chinle Formation, not the "ghost ranch formation", and I'm not sure it would even qualify. Also, I'm assuming what you call "Karatau" is the Karabastau Formation, which is actually Jurassic, not Triassic. Dgrootmyers (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Ranch 

message: :Transferred from inappropriately placed request from the main article space. I'll see if I can add it myself-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to create an article on the formation itself based on your paper as well. Feel free to correct it if I make any errors. Cheers. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition request - Mangrullo Formation  

message: In one of the earliest English papers I could find on the subject, Dolf Seilacher puts forward a very, very broad definition of a fossil-Lagerstätten.  
: "Corresponding to economic Lagerstätten of minerals and ores, fossil Lagerstätten were defined as rock bodies unusually rich in palaeontological information, either in a quantitative or qualitative sense.  This means that the term embraces not only strata with an unusual preservation, but also less spectacular deposits such as shell beds, bone beds and crinoidal limestones.  The concept also implies that there is no sharp boundary with 'normal' fossiliferous rocks."
:::: Sedimentological, Ecological and Temporal Patterns of Fossil Lagerstätten [and Discussion]:  A. Seilacher, W.-E. Reif, F. Westphal, R. Riding, E.N.K. Clarkson and H.B. Whittington.  Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1985 311.
Exceptional preservation is explicitly called unnecessary, and time-averaging is not mentioned.  Please note that this is Dr. Seilacher's own definition for a fossil Lagerstätten, and since he originated the term, there isn't much wiggle room here.  When he refers to these less spectacular deposits he is referring to konzentrat-Lagerstätten and not konservat, but Lagerstätten nonetheless.  Things like oyster beds or vertebrate bonebeds are Lagerstätten regardless of the quality of preservation or the duration of deposition.  The list as it stands seems to be mostly of koservat-Lagerstätten, with an uneven sprinkling of the most notable konzentrat-Lagerstätten.  It is not nearly as exhaustive as it ought to be given the title.  Even so, I realize that a truly exhaustive list of notable Lagerstätten would be daunting, since most invertebrate and a large percentage of vertebrate sites would qualify, but there we are.  The list should either be renamed "Important konservat-Lagerstätten," or made a great deal more inclusive.  If the latter option is selected, places like Big Bone Lick, Como Bluff / Morrison Formation, and the entire Cincinnatian sequence should absolutely be included.  
--DE 72.48.177.50 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List is Badly Named! 

message: The mid-Eocene Geiseltal formation, ~45 mya, is sufficiently important to be given an article and to be included here, yes? -Wetman (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geiseltal 

message: I just read an article about an emerging new Lagerstätte in the Hell Creek area USA. Here is the Link;  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-day-the-dinosaurs-died  . If this pans out it could be the most important fossil site ever discovered. The Geologist is young & controversial. It appears to have been laid down within hours of the K-Pg Extinction Event. Professor Alvarez has visited the site which is being kept secret. If it passes scrutiny it will be direct evidence of the Event including victims, Tektites, chaotic deposits etc. It should at least be briefly mentioned as a possible new Lagerstätte in the encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this seems to be a reference to the highly controversial (methodology and results have been questioned) Tanis site, which is already in the Cretaceous list.  I would support removing it from the list for now, as its controversial nature is still being addressed by the wider paleontological community, and that I am aware, no reliable sources currently have ACTUALLY deemed it a lagersttäte.--Kevmin § 23:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Tanis is currently disputed and should be removed from the list until reliable secondary sources provide evidence that there is consensus that Tanis is a lagerstätte (or not). The only source in scientific journals that I have found referring to Tanis as a lagerstätte is the primary source by de Palma et al. GeoWriter (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerging possibly very important Lagerstätte 

message: In the various tables, many of the related images are simply a reconstruction of an animal from the area with a short description.  This is fine, but I believe that the importance of preservation fidelity in conservation Lagerstaetten means it would be an improvement to the article if the associated thumbnails were photographs of various specific fossils from the localities where possible.  Many of the entries on the list have such thumbnails, but I think a more uniform theme would be appropriate.  I wasn't sure if this was something that needed discussion before making the edit so I figured I would ask. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving relevance of thumbnails 

message: Currently, this article uses capitalised and non-capitalised versions of the words lagerstätte and lagerstätten. This usage is inconsistent. I suggest that this article should be consistent in its use of upper case or lower case letters for these words. I think that specific examples, e.g. Canjuers Lagerstätte, would be proper names, and the upper case Lagerstätte is appropriate. However, when referring to a single unnamed occurrence of the phenomenon in general terms (i.e. as a common noun) should this article use "a Lagerstätte" or "a lagerstätte"? When referring to the group of some or all occurrences (i.e. as a common noun) should this article use Lagerstätten or lagerstätten? Lagerstätte is an English word (e.g. it is in the Oxford English Dictionary), albeit derived from German. I think "a lagerstätte" and "lagerstätten" would be more consistent with English grammar. Is it better for this Wikipedia article to follow English spelling and case conventions rather than German spelling rules? GeoWriter (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any objections or comments, I have changed the article to use lowercase versions of these words when not part of a proper name. GeoWriter (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lagerstätte/Lagerstätten or lagerstätte/lagerstätten?