Practice and prospects in underwater palaeontology

Abstract

Underwater deposits, especially those in phreatic caves, often contain exquisitely preserved fossils, and many represent Quaternary Konservat-Lagerstätten. Nevertheless, they are unrecognised as such by most practicing palaeontologists. This review highlights the unique contributions to palaeontology made by underwater deposits as well as the technical and practical challenges facing underwater palaeontologists. Recovery of fossils from such deposits requires specialist training, equipment, and procedures unique to these environments. Taphonomic studies of underwater assemblages are rare and hampered by difficulties in fossil recovery. Neotaphonomic experiments and observations of modern accumulations in underwater settings should be a priority for future research. Regions where such techniques might provide important new insights into Quaternary faunas and environments, not accessible through traditional palaeontological approaches, include low-lying flooded continental shelves and soil-poor karstic landscapes. Underwater palaeontology represents a largely unexplored yet significant source of fossils, further study of which will expand and enrich traditional approaches in the study of ancient organisms.

Shifting faunal baselines through the Quaternary revealed by cave fossils of eastern Australia

“…Caves are a critical source of vertebrate fossils (Bacon et al, 2004; Lundelius, 2006; Jass & George, 2010; McFarlane, 2013; Louys et al, 2017; Price et al, 2017; Hawkins et al, 2018; Louys, 2018). The preservation of vertebrate assemblages within a cave are governed by a complex set of factors including local geology, hydrology, biogeography, and cave topology and topography (Simms, 1994; Jass & George, 2010; Louys et al, 2017).…”

Mineral species and formation processes: Raman spectroscopic and microscopic analysis of stains from a late pleistocene continental drowned faunal bone assemblage, Central Chile

“…Taking in consideration the uplift rates calculated north and south of the study area in recent studies, we considered in our analyses a mean uplift rate of 0.3 mm/year at Quintero since the late Pleistocene (e.g., Del Valle et al, 2017, 2018Martinod et al, 2016). According to this updated uplift rate and the sea level curve proposed by Lambeck et al (2014), during the formation of GNLQ1 (ca.…”

“…This exploratory study has sought to improve our understanding of the taphonomy of fossil bone assemblages of submerged sites (Louys, 2018) by investigating a new line of evidence addressing the analysis of bone staining and its sedimentary deposits. Although still necessarily limited, spectroscopic data offers significant possibilities for future research on formative processes of now submerged paleolandscapes.…”

“…In some cases, there is not enough conclusive and debatable evidence to determine whether these finds are associated to natural or cultural processes (Eren et al, 2015). For early submerged sites in particular, few taphonomic comparative studies are available on bone remains submerged in freshwater or marine environments, making the interpretation of such assemblages and their associated site formation processes extremely challenging (Dunbar et al, 1989;Hoyle et al, 2004;López et al, 2016;Louys, 2018;Lowery, 2009;Webb & Simons, 2006).…”