Talk:Lagerstätte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German word literally translates as "resting places." - According to my Paleobiology Text book (by Derek Briggs) Lagerstätten means is dervived from mining traddition and means any rock or sedimentary body containing constituents of economic interest. The correct word is fossil-Lagerstätten, that is fossil bearing rocks worthy of exploitation. Which of the two is correct? Any German speakers out there? Sabine's Sunbird 11:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In a paleontological context, the "fossil-" is now understood; Paleobiology II came out in a new edition in 2003. The "worthy of exploitation" aspect is less relevant, outside the extractive industries, where the word was originally coined. "Lagerstätten" appears even in article titles nowadays, I notice. Even if it were less correct, the more common usage always makes the better heading for a Wikipedia article, don't you think? --Wetman

• Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was that the origin of the word laggerstatten was from fossil-lagerstatten, as in "fossil bearing rocks worthy of exploitation", rather than lagerstatten from the word 'resting place'. Thus the wording of the article should reflect this (I wasn't suggesting changiing the title), assuming that that is the correct origin of the word Sabine's Sunbird 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Konzentrat-Lagerstätten (or concentration Lagerstätten) signifies deposits with a particular concentration of disarticulated organic hard parts, such as a bone bed" — adding "or an oyster bed" shows a misunderstanding of the geology or of the German. Shelly parts of an oyster bed that have been concentrated in an accumulation away from their living site (through tidal forces etc.) are the only possible example I can think of for this addition. Oyster beds preserved in situ are not Konzentrat-Lagerstätten. I have not removed this confusing addition, following the general principle Avoid unnecessary interference. --Wetman 14:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added it as a further example of accumilation deposits, I guess it could be confusing for the reasons you gave. Maybe an ammonite coquina would be a better example? Sabine's Sunbird 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, folks! I am the german native speaker you where asking for. First: the german word Lagerstätte does not derive from resting place. A resting place, in the sense of a camp or a grave, would simply be Lager, or Grab respectively. Lagerstätte rather stems from Lage, in the sense of "layer", and is solely used in conection with Mineral Deposits, not with fossil-Lagerstätten (as in english), nor with archeological sites (as in spanish). The article es:yacimiento in the spanish Wikipedia, to wich this article is linked, is actually a Definition-choise page (or what ever you call it), that does list all three meanings. Second: the german term for a paleontological, or archeological site is: Fundstätte (= findingplace). Unfortunatately this english page is now linked to the german page de:Lagerstätte, which itself is linked to the english page deposit. So, every now and then appears some mindless bot, and changes the link back to this (incorrect) page (mumbling Hasta la vista, baby in the process). Would you please be so kind, to delete your current german link and change it to the article de:Fundstätte? Yours sincerely.

Ups! The article "Fundstätte" does not exist yet. So, just please delete the link to "Lagerstätte". User:Geoz.

[edit] Does Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, qualify?

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)

No, this perennial schoolboy favorite, though a site where fossils have been retrieved, is not a lagerstätte. --Wetman 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Lagerstätte 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 [1]: 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)

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)

[edit] Naracoorte Caves National Park

Does this also qualify, it is quite famous for the fossils it contains. Enlil Ninlil 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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)