SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LII. No. 1348 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 



PROFESSOR FIELD'S USE OF THE TERM FOSSIL 



In examining copies of Science which 

 accumulated during the vacation just closed, 

 a contribution on the "Use of the Term 

 Fossil " in the number of date June 25 has 

 attracted my attention and challenges criti- 

 cism. 



The definition proposed by Professor Field 

 in this contribution is faulty in that it errs 

 in the time concept. He has committed the 

 popular error of considering " historic" synon- 

 ymous with the present geological epoch. 

 The remains of an animal or plant may 

 antedate human history (be prehistoric) by 

 many thousands of years without belonging 

 to a past geological epoch. 



In constructing a definition of the term 

 fossil, it is difficult to improve upon the essen- 

 tial ideas connoted by the term as used by Dr. 

 Karl Von Zittel in his " Palaeozoologie." 

 According to this authority fossils need not 

 be mineralized, nor the remains of extinct 

 organisms, but must possess a certain antiq- 

 uity — they must have come down to us from 

 a geological age earlier than the present. 



We would propose then as a concise defi- 

 nition of fossil, " Any trace of an organism 

 that lived in a past geological age." 



While agreeing that accuracy in scientific 

 definition is an object worth striving to attain, 

 we can not concur with Professor Field in 

 objecting to a use of certain scientific terms 

 in a derived sense — commonly figurative. 

 Language is being constantly enriched by 

 such usage. 



The expression " fossil botanist " may be 

 criticized as objectional, because ambiguous, 

 but " fossil ripple marks," " fossil suncracks," 

 " fossil flood plains " ( Shimer) are illumina- 

 ting and apt and are valued contributions to 

 geological phraseology. It is futile to in- 

 veigh against such usage or against " literary 

 persons " for coining the terms " fossil 

 poetry" and "fossil statesman." Rather 

 should we rejoice in this evidence that our 

 science is not altogether out of touch with 

 modem life. Whether we approve or not, 

 such expressions have come to stay. Not only 



new words, but old words with a new mean- 

 ing content are being constantly introduced 

 into a growing language. Words simply will 

 not stay tied, but as Archbishop Trench put 

 it are, as regards their meanings, " constantly 

 drifting from their moorings." The term 

 fossil, itself, is an illustration in point; also 

 the names of certain fossils, as helemnite, 

 ammonite and nummulite, which embody 

 original erroneous conceptions as to their 

 nature. 



As an illustration of a fossil that as the 

 result of refusing to be straight jacketed has 

 made an important contribution to English 

 we have mammoth, from the Tartar word 

 maimon. In the space of about one hundred 

 years this word has given us in its adjective 

 use a synonym for huge so thoroughly in- 

 corporated into our speech that few people 

 recognize its exotic character. It may be of 

 interest to some to learn that the first 

 recorded use of the name of this animal in an 

 adjective sense was in Kentucky. John 

 Filson in describing Big Bone Lick in his 

 History of Kentucky, written in 1784, referred 

 to the animal as maimon. Within three 

 years, however, we find Thomas Jefferson and 

 others, also in describing Big Bone Lick, 

 calling the animal mammoth. Within twenty- 

 five years from this time we find the word 

 beginning to be used as an adjective in 

 the sense of very large. The earliest recorded 

 instance of its use in this sense in in 1812, 

 when in a deed it was applied to a very large 

 saltpeter cave in what is now Edmonson but 

 was then Warren county, Kentucky. That 

 this use of the word had not spread to Eng- 

 land by 1818 is evidenced by a passage in the 

 letters of James Flint, who writing to Eng- 

 land at that date and referring to this large 

 cave in Kentucky remarks that " they call 

 it Mammoth Cave, but why I do not know, 

 for there are no mammoth bones found there." 

 Evidently at that time the use of the word 

 in the sense of large was too much of an 

 Americanism to be comprehended by this 

 Englishman. 



Arthur M. Miller 

 Universitt of Kentucky, 



