Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:27:36.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A buffered formic acid technique for conodont extraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Lennart Jeppsson  and
Rikard Anehus
Lennart Jeppsson
Affiliation:
Department of Historical Geology and Palaeontology, Sölvegatan 13, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden
Rikard Anehus
Affiliation:
Klockarestigen 4, S-240 13 Genarp, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formic acid must be buffered with both calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate to be suitable for extraction of conodont elements and other phosphatic fossils from dolomites. All unbuffered solutions and those buffered with only calcium carbonate or calcium phosphate destroy the phosphatic fossils. Experimental effects using different concentrations and different combinations of phosphate and calcium carbonate are diagrammatically illustrated. A 10 percent formic acid solution with 20 g calcium carbonate and 1.2 g tricalcium phosphate per liter leaves conodont elements undamaged even for a period of 129 days. One liter of this solution dissolves 95 g dolomite.

Type
Technique
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , July 1995 , pp. 790 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Graves, R. W., and Ellison, S. 1941. Ordovician conodonts of the Marathon Basin, Texas. Missouri University, School of Mines and Metallurgy, Bulletin Technical Series, 14:1–26.Google Scholar
Hauff, P. L., and Airey, J. 1980. The handling, hazards, and maintenance of heavy liquids in the geologic laboratory. U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 827:1–24.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1974 (1975). Aspects of Late Silurian conodonts. Fossils and Strata, 6:1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1982. In Sweet, W. C. (ed.), Pander Society Newsletter, 14:11.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L., Fredholm, D., and Mattiasson, B. 1985. Acetic acid and phosphatic fossils—a warning. Journal of Paleontology, 59:952–956.Google Scholar
Mawson, R. 1987. Documentation of conodont assemblages across the Early Devonian–Middle Devonian Boundary, Broken River Formation, North Queensland, Australia. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 92:251–273.Google Scholar
Merrill, G. K. 1985. Interfacial alternatives to the use of dangerous heavy liquids in micropaleontology. Journal of Paleontology, 59:479–481.Google Scholar
Stone, J. 1987. Review of investigative technique used in the study of conodonts, p. 17–34. In Austin, R. L. (ed.), Conodonts: Investigative Techniques and Applications. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester.Google Scholar
Ward, D. J. 1984. Collecting isolated microvertabrate fossils. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82:245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiman, C. 1895. Über die Graptoliten. Bulletin of the Geological Institution of Uppsala, 2:2, No. 4.Google Scholar
Wiman, C. 1896. The structure of the graptolites. Natural Science, 9:186–249.Google Scholar
Ziegler, W., Lindström, M., and McTavish, R. 1971. Monochloracetic acid and conodonts—a warning. Nature, 230:584–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar