Fossils are, by definition, dead

Posted on September 16, 2006 by | 9 Comments

The phrase “Living Fossil” is second to only “Missing Link” on my list of irks-me-to-no-end abuses of English language. Darren Naish now explains exactly what is wrong with the term, using as the case study the recent rediscovery of the Sumatran rhino. This is your Most Obligatory reading of the day!

This entry was posted in Basic Biology, Paleontology, Science Education, Science Practice, Science Reporting. Bookmark the permalink.

9 responses to “Fossils are, by definition, dead”

  1. Bill Hooker's avatar Bill Hooker | September 16, 2006 at 3:04 pm |

    The phrase “Living Fossil” is second to only “Missing Link” on my list of irks-me-to-no-end abuses of English language.
    Well, if we’re playing that game, here’s one of mine: “to no end” means “to no purpose, for no reason”. The phrase you want is “irks me no end”, meaning “irks me endlessly”.

  2. coturnix's avatar coturnix | September 16, 2006 at 4:23 pm |

    Thanks…you know I am a furrinner…

  3. Bill Hooker's avatar Bill Hooker | September 16, 2006 at 4:31 pm |

    Actually, I’m a bit embarrassed to be “correcting” your English, which is better than many native speakers’, but you take evident care with it so I figured you wouldn’t mind.

  4. The Science Pundit's avatar The Science Pundit | September 16, 2006 at 6:11 pm |

    I’ve always had issues with the term “living fossil.” On occasion, I’ll see a press release that states something like “by ‘living fossil’ we mean…” and I tolerate that. But any organism that’s alive today, no matter how much it resembles its 100+ million old ancestor, has gone through just as much evolution as you and me and everything else alive today.

  5. NJ's avatar NJ | September 17, 2006 at 9:32 am |

    Fossils are, by definition, dead

    Wait, you live in North Carolina and never heard of Jesse Helmes?

  6. coturnix's avatar coturnix | September 17, 2006 at 9:45 am |

    Does ‘braindead’ equal ‘dead’? If so, he’s been a fossil all his life.

  7. llewelly's avatar llewelly | January 27, 2007 at 11:17 pm |

    Would a zombie Spinosaurus qualify as a living fossil?

  8. coturnix's avatar coturnix | January 27, 2007 at 11:21 pm |

    Ha! I guess so! Scooby Doo where are you?

  9. Monado's avatar Monado | January 27, 2007 at 11:29 pm |

    I am using the terms “living fossil” occasionally and “missing link” more often in hopes of drawing in people who think of evolution or taxonomy in those ways and even creationists who might be looking for yet another list of Gaps in the Fossil Record, and then hitting them with a snippet of information or a filled gap. It’s an indexer’s trick to think of the terms that your audience will use and not just your own favourites.
    (Example here: Microscopic missing link)