September. 1918] 



The Ottawa Naturalist 



45 



Canadian expert is writing about, we have agreed 

 that all fossils shall have Latin names and that these 

 names shall be used at all times whether the work 

 is written in Japanese or English, or any other lan- 

 guage. Since the presence of the same name for 

 two or more things would introduce even worse con- 

 fusion between the workers in the different countries 

 we have also agreed to give different names to 

 different animals and but one name to similar 

 animals wherever they may be found. This is the 

 only method by which we can speak of or compare 

 accurately and intelligently the fossils occurring in 

 different countries, but since we already know and 

 have described and illustrated several hundred 

 thousand different kinds of fossils some of the names 

 are a little complicated. This explains the unusual- 

 ness of names such as those in the papers by Whitta- 

 ker in the April number of the Naturalist and by 

 Lambe and McLearn in the May number. Instead 

 of John Jones, William Jones, and Mary Jones we 

 speak of Jones John, Jones William, and Jones 

 Mary, or to use real fossil names, Oboliis panms, 

 Obolus major, and Obolus iypus, putting the im- 

 portant or group name first as do the Chinese. Li 

 Hung Chang is Mr. Li, for example, a change we 

 have to make whenever we get out a directory, a 

 telephone book, or an index, but which the Chinese 

 and the fossil experts do not. 



Now let's go back to the farmer's dog. You will 

 remember that we decided that it did not come 

 within the definition and therefore was not a fossil, 

 but supposing the farmer had dug up some fossil 

 bones from another farm, fossils that lived earlier 

 and were therefore really older instead of younger, 

 as the dag was, and buried them in the same way. 

 These would of course be fossils; they were and the 

 fact of their having been moved did not change their 

 nature, but once again, it would take a very expert 

 farmer (a very expert paleontologist in fact) to fool 

 any paleontologist this way. Curiously enough, 

 however. Nature herself has done many things, 

 things which must be included under the head of 

 natural burial, much more confusing than anything 

 we have supposed the farmer to do. Old sea 

 bottoms with their included fossils have been hard- 

 ened into rock, elevated above the sea, cracked, and 

 the cracks widened by the wear of running water 

 or frost just as such cracks, or joints, are being 

 widened today, and animals living millions of years 

 later have dropped into these cracks and been cov- 

 ered up and preserved. What real difference is 

 there between the farmer-buried dog three or four 

 feet down in a grave beside fossils thousands or 

 millions of years earlier than itself and fossils 1 5 

 or 20 feet down in a crack beside fossils that much 

 earlier than themselves? None, except that the 



one is natural, the other artificial, but when we are 

 dealing with fossils this difference is essential. 

 Again, other sea bottoms, hardened into rock and 

 elevated above the sea, are being gradually worn 

 away by agencies which are unable to dissolve the 

 harder included fossils and these weathered-out 

 specimens are being picked up by storms and washed 

 into the ocean to he on the bottom with animals 

 which have just died. The next layer of mud will 

 cover both, the recent animal and the million year 

 old fossil, and when the new sand has hardened into 

 rock the two forms will be found in the same grave. 

 What real difference is there between the farmer- 

 buried fossils in a grave beside fossils thousands or 

 millions of years later than themselves and the 

 nature-buried fossils lying beside fossils fully as 

 much later than themselves? None, except, as in 

 the former case, that one just happened, it was the 

 natural thing, the other was man made and accom- 

 panied by an act of will. 



If you wonder why paleontologists do not include 

 under the term fossils an}) direct evidence of life 

 preserved in the earth's crust we shall have to st.y 

 that the evidence of man's interference may be lost 

 and can be hidden, and that his ability to transport 

 animals or plants long distances without leaving any 

 trace as to their source, his conscious interference 

 with the natural course of events, irrespective of the 

 motive, introduces complications which warrant us 

 in putting the limit we have assigned and insisting 

 on natural burial. As a matter of fact we usually 

 confine the term fossils to the evidences of life which 

 have been preserved to us from the prehistoric 

 period, popularly speaking, but the study of fossils 

 and the study of biology merge so closely togethcj 

 that they can not be separated. So do the study 

 of fossil or "prehistoric" man (paleontology) and 

 the study of early or historic man (archaeology). 



If you think our illustrations have been too com- 

 plicated we can only say that Nature has been 

 known to still further confuse the whole problem 

 by turning a whole series of such rocks completely 

 upside down and by scraping half or three-fourths 

 of them away and otherwise disturbing them during 

 the process which has elevated them above the sea. 

 Furthermore we have taken up only a few of the 

 problems which are involved. The animals and 

 plants that peopled the earth at any one time millions 

 of years ago, for example, differed from place to 

 place and from country to country fully as widely 

 as do the animals and plants of today. 



The study is so complicated that few geologists 

 care to postpone the beginning of their period of 

 full activity as working geologists by the number of 

 years of preparation required for even an elementary 

 understanding of the story told by the fossils occur- 



