FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[James Catmur]

When I was young my mother encouraged me to collect fossils in England (we lived first near the Jurasic coast then on carboniferous limestone/mill stone grit so fossils were easy to find), then we moved to Mexico and I discovered minerals and dropped fossil collecting completely. Since then I have, until very recently, only collected minerals. But now I have small children and near where we live we can find fossils but no minerals, so I have returned to the 'dark side'. Found some nice ammonites this weekend on a highway being built near the house - one is a pyrite cast of an ammonite so could be both fossil and mineral I guess?

What do people think about mixing the two hobbies? In the end for my children it is helping them develop an interest in finding such items, and I will take them to mines too as long as they are safe. They have now got used to bringing something back from almost every hike we do and the garden is filling up with various fossils.

So am I now a persona non grata or just showing a healthy dual interest? Do I need help?

James

[Jordi Fabre]

James,

I'm much worst than you, I don't like polished specimens and/or gemstones and my Master, John S. White, he hates me for this! ;-)

Jordi

[Tracy]

I'm a dual collector of petrified wood and minerals, so one could argue that I like fossils (albeit trees, not creatures).

I don't see anything wrong with mixing the two hobbies. They overlap greatly. In the case of your pyrite cast of ammonite, there is overlap of mineralogy mixing with evolution. Both take you down the path of geology at some point or another, so you might be teaching your children to appreciate rock history along with paleontology. That is as valid a way as any other to cultivate an interest (or not) in minerals. If it's safe to collect them, and they're fun to learn about, I say go for it!

- Tracy (written in haste)

[James Catmur]

So if it is ok, should I take the same care? The minerals are labelled with all the data I can get on them (which if they are self collected is a lot) but the fossils are just sitting around the house or garden. Do fossil collectors add all the details we like to add? As a child all I remember was trying to work out the species. So should I add those details as a record for the fossils?

Tracy, you are right that it teaches them geology and about rocks and minerals. So my eight year old is fairly good at getting the geological periods right and my six year old knows her carboniferous from her jurrasic (even if the former is often carniverous).

Jordi, the old one of polished versus natural rears its head - just as we saw in the recent MinRec editorial.

So do we have a sliding scale?
1 Fossils
2 Polished
3 Gems
4 Repaired
5 Chemically cleaned (water is a chemical)
6 As found

I guess we all sit somewhere on that 'line', willing to collect some things but not others (so I used to collect just 5 and 6, but have now added 1, while Jordi only touches 5 and 6?)

James

[Tracy]

I would suggest labeling your fossils like this: species, genus/family (level of detail up to you), locality, geological age (based on what you know about the area and the approximate age of the specimens you collect - could be a wide window of time though), and any other interesting tidbits. Something not unlike labeling species, mine (or shaft within mine), locality, year acquired. The difference between fossils and minerals is that fossils are more or less fixed in geological time, whereas minerals are continually being discovered. Teach your kid a bit of everything and let him (?) explore different aspects of science...

- Tracy

[Les Presmyk]

I would definitely record all of the information you know such as when you collected a fossil, where it was collected, the strata you collected it from. If you can determine all of the naming protocol so much the better.

Now, to the subject of rank ordering where each of these natural collectables should be, I take exception to your list. First, I see nothing at all wrong with washing specimens after they have been collected. The logic of believing that a washed specimen should be considered lower on some scale than an unwashed specimen escapes me so I will let someone else justify that point. Although, it is not the first time I have heard that.

Also, leaving specimens dirty with iron oxide coatings or some other coating that can be removed with chemicals makes no sense to me but I know there are collectibles who believe they should remain the same as when brought out of the ground. There are those who believe no trimming should take place either and I disagree with that as well.

Gemstones and polished materials are a significant part of our hobby and have their place. I just don't think they need to ranked with the obviously more beautiful natural crystals and crystal groups. However, there are a number of minerals that are truly enhanced by lapidary treatment. I am not justifying the cutting of fine crystals but that is an economic decision.

You did include repaired specimens on your list and that can generate its own set of arguments. Simple repairs are okay in my world but as soon as a person starts filling in gaps or adding anything that was not there to be begin with then I have a problem with that specimen sitting next to one that is totally natural.

Fossils are every bit as collectable as are gemstones and minerals. I have collected fossils when the opportunity presented itself and enjoyed it immensely. It is certainly a wonderful way to get your kids involved. In fact, one of the comic strips just did a couple of days of the grandmother getting her two granddaughters to pick up trash while pretending they were fossils.

Arizona does have some areas for collecting fossils but they are not as prevalent as the number of old mines and surface mineral deposits available to be collected when I was growing up. Thus, I followed my interest in minerals but never lost my fascination with fossils. In fact, Paula has a small collection of fossils replaced by minerals including aragonite replaced belemites from New Jersey, vivianite replacing belemites, whale bone and some sort of shell, and a couple of examples of fire opal after similar animals.

[GneissWare]

James,
Typically, fossils are labeled as Tracy describes, although I usually include the formation name, if I can research it.

Typically, you would also include Phylum, Class, Subclass and Order to provide for some sort of systematics (the Dana or Strunz of fossils). So, for your ammonite, your classification would be Phylum Mollusca, Class Cephalopoda, Subclass Ammonoidea, then species, subspecies.

I also like fossils---but lets keep it between us,
Bob

[Tobi]

James, you are not a persona non grata just because of your dual collecting interests ;-) There are a lot of people who collect both minerals and fossils, a very common combination. I even knew a guy who collected minerals and dead insects and spiders - and placed them together in his displays ... believe me: A giant tarantula sittiing on a fine mineral specimen is really an odd sight ...

But back to topic: I collected only a few fossils when i was young, but they never really interested me. I don't know why but minerals were always something special, nearly "magic" to me. And fossils, well ... some of them are quite nice, but there was always this "it has no crystals + it once was alive = boring" in my mind ;-)

Oh, and Jordi: You don't like polished specimens and gemstones? The same with me, i always considered cutting and faceting minerals as a "rape" of nature. No gem can ever be as aesthetic as a beautiful crystal in its natural shape. (But that's just my opinion, i don't want to affront someone!)

[lluis]

Good evening

I fear that I am a collector
I collect many things (from porcelain cups hand painted with flowers (thin slice?), ancient..to coins, stamps and cut stones (and......... shhhhh: comics :-) ) , apart from minerals. Very sharp fields, nevertheless (I collect Julian II, the philosopher (the other calificative is not welcome from my side....), but not the rest of emperors....)
In all fields, I try to get the maximum info I can. I am truly worried that in cut stones many times there is only placed the country (not a collectable for me....)
I suppose that I am a patient of the kinestesic reinforcement of learning...... :-)

And I am a stubborn mule that see only the gaps in the collection, not the ones I have.

By the way, I collect systematic (not a wonder for no one.....)
To collect fossils have become a truly trouble in Spain, so, I prefer to avoid them....I have enough troubles when you talk with an archaeologist and he said you that the crysoprase from the well known jaciment in Poland is also a finite resource....No commentaires .

With best wishes

Lluís

[James Catmur]

With regards to cleaning with water, I have no problem with that - except where it damages the specimen. If you collect Gypsum from Fuentes del Ebro in Spain (and I have collected many flats there) water is a total killer - you get rid of the mud but end up with a matt finish. And I agree that cleaning off coatings or even disolving calcite to reveal the mineral below is fine. But using acid to 'heal' a ding gets a bit suspect.

So in the end we all collect what we like and that is great! But I do wonder if some mineral people are a little reluctant to reveal that they collect fossils as well - I only say that as I know very few have told me that they do.

I will try to teach Alasdair and Iona to label 'their' fossils, just as I did not when I was young. I know that we are in the upper jurrasic here on the clays above the Oxford green sands and with a good geological map can be even more accurate.

james

[James Catmur]

I have to admit that I come from a family of collectors - my grandfather built the world's largest collection of printed emphemera, the John Johnson Collection:
https://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/johnson/
(link normalized by FMF)
He did that because he was an egyptologist and he realised that you learnt far more about normal life from people's trash than from the tombs of the kings. So, as he ran the Oxford University Press, he collected the printed things that people normally throw away. My mother tells me that he really took this to an extreme.

But I have tried to limit myself to one collection and one room of the house - the largest room of course - which is now full of minerals (but I am not allowed to expand beyond it). That said the children's fossils are another story.

It is strange how we create divisions on what we do and do not collect and I guess each one of us can justify our limits in our own minds, even if at times they seem strange to others.

James

[Les Presmyk]

Given enough time (and adding heat and pressure) anything can be dissolved in water. So, it is not as benigh as some would think. A friend of mine washed a number of Mexican gypsum crystals in water and a mild dish washing detergent and turned all of his clear crystals white. But I digress.

We are all collectors. I started out collecting coins and stamps but once I found minerals I never looked back. I certainly do not look down upon someone who collects fossils or gemstones (if it is an ugly or broken crystal I do not see what is wrong with cutting or faceting it) or whatever someone wants to collect. What is the point? It does not seem to be a good use of time to try and determine where one sort of collectable ranks with another type of collectable. Collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect. If fossils are the means by which you give your children the same joy you have felt for minerals and fossils, I say go for it.

We have not even touched upon fluorescent minerals and where they might rank on the list.

[Vinoterapia]

I am (or was) a geologist by training, so I like everything that is produced by or derived from earth. Minerals provide me a sense of beauty and perfection, simmetry, colour, reflections...Fossils tells me about age, evolution, life continuum...Rocks are a mixture of textures, fabrics, structures...
I do not even consider myself a mineral collector since I do not have an orientation or goal in the specimens that I gather.

Regards.

José Luis.

[Jim Prentiss]

Hello Everyone,

I am not anal about strickly collecting minerals.

I have to say I love my fossils. I have an opalized clam from Australia, and a pyritized Ammonite from Russia. There is of course the Hematite from Washington state after turtle dung. They fit right into the Dana classification also.

Fossils are a good thing.

Jim Prentiss

[James Catmur]

Since I started this post the children and I have been back to the highway construction site a number of times and have found lots of broken amonites and gryphea. We decided it was really not worth while as the main rock removal was over and we were not finding much so we stopped going.

Then the wife of a fossil collecting friend dropped by the house and saw the finds and told her husband. He called and asked if we could do one last visit and take him - well I told him that they had finished all the major rock moving so there was likely to be nothing of interest, but just for fun we could go.

We got there and found almost nothing except the odd broken ammonite. Then I saw an area where they were just finshing off leveling the embankments so the children and I went to check it out (by the way these are gentle slopes, so safe for the children) and I saw an interesting rock with bones on it. Bits of a plesiosaur! So my children's dream has come true - "find a dinosaur" (well almost). I have now had it cleaned and can finally say that as a mineral collector we have found our first really good fossil!

So the mineral collection is my main love by far - but this sure was a fun find and proves that you should just keep going back until you really are sure that there is nothing left!

[GneissWare]

COOL! Nice find.

[James Catmur]

The fossil experts tell me that we almost certainly found a:

Plesiosaur Cryptoclidus eurymerus (Phillips)

Lower Oxford Clay, Late Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, (England).

Which sounds about right, as we found it in the lower Oxford clays in Bedfordshire, England

Not a bad find for a mineral collector! But then I have always been good at seeing interesting rocks!

James