Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:16:36.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scanning electron microscope inverse imaging technique for positive image photomicrographs of microfossil molds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

D. Jeffrey Over ,
Mark Grimson  and
James E. Barrick
D. Jeffrey Over
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, New York 14454
Mark Grimson
Affiliation:
Electron Microscope Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409
James E. Barrick
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Macro- and microfossils are commonly preserved as external molds as a result of decay or dissolution of soft and mineralized body parts after compaction and cementation of the surrounding matrix. The molds, which often preserve external features of the organism in great detail, are difficult to compare to other specimens. To enhance study, positive casts are typically made. Numerous compounds can serve as a casting medium (Rigby and Clark, 1965; Rixon, 1976). In microfossil studies latex rubber (Klapper in Winder, 1966; Ellison, 1987; Tull et al., 1988) and silicone rubber (G. Miller, personal commun.) are the most commonly used materials. An alternative technique is to photograph the mold directly using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 65 , Issue 6 , November 1991 , pp. 1013 - 1014
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

Ellison, S. P. Jr. 1987. Examples of Devonian and Mississippian conodont lag concentrates from Texas, p. 77–93. In Austin, R. L. (ed.), Conodonts: Investigative Techniques and Applications. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester.Google Scholar
Over, D. J. 1990. Conodont biostratigraphy of the Woodford Shale (Late Devonian–Early Carboniferous) from the Arbuckle Mountains, south-central Oklahoma. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 174 p.Google Scholar
Rigby, J. K., and Clark, D. L. 1965. Casting and molding, p. 389–413. In Kummel, B. and Raup, D. (eds.), Handbook of Paleontological Techniques. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Rixon, A. E. 1976. Fossil Animal Remains, Their Preparation and Conservation. Athlone Press of the University of London, London, 304 p.Google Scholar
Sannemann, D. 1956. Beitrag zur Untergliederung des Oberdevons nach Conodonten. Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 100:324–331.Google Scholar
Stone, J. 1987. Review of investigative techniques 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
Tull, J. F., Harris, A. G., Repetski, J. E., McKinney, F. K., Garrett, C. B., and Bearce, D. N. 1988. New paleontological evidence constraining the age and paleotectonic setting of the Talladega slate belt, southern Appalachians. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100:1291–1299.Google Scholar
Winder, C. G. 1966. Conodont zones and stratigraphic variability in Upper Devonian rocks, Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 40:1275–1293.Google Scholar