Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 3

If anyone can help, please do. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find the images you want to have included in the compilation and link to them here? Then it'll be quite easy to do. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the images:

• Komodo Dragon(Reptile)
• Shearwater(Bird)
• White Lipped tree frog(Amphibian)
• African Elephant(Mammal)
• Manta Ray(Cartilagnious Fish)

Thanks KnowledgeRequire (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you strike them out and write nevermind in the sumary? FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have created a bot that will be using a database of prehistoric genus to fill in the tables on pages like

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool, will it be creating vertebrate articles too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance is needed at the article

I recently merged all articles about mastodon species into the mastodon article.[38] All of the articles where stubs with very little unique info, and the same has been done to most other articles about other fossil species already. But my redirect of Mammut americanum to mastodon was reverted by WolfmanSF, what do other editors think should be the right procedure? This was previously discussed here: [39] FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some problems with the current mastodon article, in that statements that are only applicable to the American mastodon are being made in such a way that they appear to be applicable to the genus as a whole. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't happen, and if it has been done like that before, it should be changed. My edits certainly didn't do anything like that, I simply put the info about individual species into a species section, like on most other fossil genus articles. Take a look at Smilodon for example. When such problems are solved, how would you propose making separate species articles that aren't just duplicates of each others and the genus article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the problems (such as describing all mastodonts as woolly) predate your edits. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted some of this. In principle, they are legitimate stubs, but they should be checked. cygnis insignis 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're legitimate as stubs, but better off merged, in my opinion, and the opinion of most others that have come before me, therefore we hardly have any fossil species stubs on Wikipedia, apart from sub-fossil species maybe. But I've already argued why I think so, what are the counterarguments? FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that few fossil species warrant an article on their own. I tend to think that, unlike extant species, we should treat genera as the default article level, species as subheadings, and create new articles when those species subheadings get too large. There are definitely some (perhaps all)

Mammut furlongi might never. In summary, my suggestion is to merge into genus and treat this like non-TOL topical articles - create species articles when length dictates it. --Aranae (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Now previously merged Smilodon articles are being recreated, couldn't we at least discuss this first? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should that article be a hodgepodge of facts, such as those that could be gleaned from

PNAS Supermodeled sabercat, predatory behavior in Smilodon fatalis revealed by high-resolution 3D computer simulation. These were deleted with the argument, 'it is better to have fewer articles'. They haven't been expanded because they were redirected to the genus article, placing facts there is misleading without a constant need to specify which Smilodon yer talkin' about. These have are legitimate stubs! cygnis insignis 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It's common practice to have only genus level taxa have articles. It is completely unnecessary to create articles about individual species of Smilodon. It would be preferable to have expanded the genus article's species sections instead of going against consensus. It's been long-standing at

WP:PAL. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If this is some rule, where does it stop. Do you doubt that these can be expanded?

WP:NOTPAPER How is this lumping supposed to improve and build the encyclopedia? I have not suggested that cannot be summarised at the genus articles, but they are the same thing as an article on a species. cygnis insignis 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

To answer your question; It stops at genus articles. I don't doubt that they can be expanded, in their parent articles. Having a stub on each species of a genus containing 57 members is utterly useless, regardless of WP:NOTPAPER. Having them scattered about in several different articles is much more cumbersome than having separate species articles. This "lumping" as you call it, centralizes the information about the specific animal, rather than scattering it around, and provides a usefull, comprehensive article, describing the species within, as well as everything else. Most species are so similar to one another in a genus, that you might as well be repetitive in writing them as they entail mostly the same information. The same information that would fit into all the species article would also fit just as well in the genus articles. Frankly, writing articles at the species level isn't encyclopedic. It just seems to "add more articles" to the encyclopedia rather than adding substance. Even if there is a great deal of information about a particular species, say... the type species, that can easily be worked into the parent genus article, as that particular species is a member of that genus. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The type species ...? cygnis insignis 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extant species articles, even sub-species, are justified because they can easily be fleshed out due to description of behaviour, external appearance and similar, but most of these things don't apply to fossil species, so they should be held to different standards. Take the tiger (species of the genus Panthera) article, for example. Could you write that much about a species of Smilodon, without the content being practically identical to the other Smilodon articles, as well as the genus? FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there needs to be hard and fast rules, surely there are some cases where extinct species surely can be afforded their own articles, particularly when there is a lot of information or the genus is not extinct -

Dire Wolf springs instantly to mind. On the other hand I agree that in most cases having the information at genus level makes the most sense from an organisational point of view. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Mammuthus species. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes there will be exceptions to the policy of genus level only, as noted above, which warrant separate articles. However the predominant amount of extinct taxa should not have species articles created. This is due, as noted, to the serous lack of differences between species, most being separated out by time, location and anatomical differences. all of which do not add up to enough different information to create full article from and thus dooming any species level article to be a duplicate of the genus article with a small section noting why it was considered a different species from the others. Plus the further back one travels in the fossil record the more montypic genera are found and the more likely the article will be at the genus level anyway. I agree that, with agreed on exceptions, extinct taxa should go no further then genus.--Kevmin (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly flexibility is the key - I am trying to think of significant prehistoric species as opposed to genera - the main ones that spring to mind are Homo erectus and maybe some of the separate species of Australopithecus, provided they haven't been split up into genera yet...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all extinct Homo species, as well as other hominina species, should have articles I think, the amount of info on them certainly isn't scarce, due to their closeness to man. And thinking a little further, a few fossil sub-species also have articles too, like the cave lion, American lion, and the cave hyena and I agree with that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again. I really think it's a length issue. If the genus article would be too long with specific information included for that particular species then it warrants a separate page. Species-specific information should not be removed or excluded in order to force it to fit on the genus page. I think all of the examples provided would fit this description or easily have the potential to fit the description. --Aranae (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging fossil species into genus articles is usual in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs only. Every other wikiprojects have a species as de facto a standard and sometimes there there are used also articles about subspecies. Wikiproject Palaeontology blend together with all other wikiprojects in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life, so it should also follow their criteria and to not contradict them, if it is not absolutely necessary. --Snek01 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't around when WP:DINO settled on genera. However, it works very well for dinosaurs, for a couple of reasons: the great majority of dinosaur genera have one species (or, if they have multiple, the non-type species are often based on a tooth or vertebra described in the 1800s with little to no context or anything in the way of useful information attached); and it is not uncommon that an author intends Xsaurus sp. when discussing Xsaurus, instead of Xsaurus typespecies, or just ignores species altogether (common, for example, in studies of the biostratigraphy of the K-T boundary, where reptile genera or families are preferred instead of species), so most information should rightly go to the genus. I've found that this holds for pterosaurs,

crurotarsans, and the various groups of marine reptiles as well, and is probably the case in many other fossil vertebrate groups. The exceptions are mammals, because of the use of teeth to readily identify taxa, and Quaternary taxa, because there is inevitably more information known on the most recent forms. "Genus instead of species" in prehistoric reptile articles reflects the overall professional attitude. Whether "genus instead of species" is best for prehistoric mammals, I wouldn't be competent to advise. J. Spencer (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Although the bird project has an article for every living species (give or take a few splits we haven't yet decided on) we don't adopt a single policy for fossils - we treat them as described by

Sinoto's Lorikeet is a good example of such an article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Abyssal's $0.02: Aranae has the right idea. Abyssal (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I was doing research into this apparent difference in nomenclature and I'm getting a bit confused. According to the intro for the official USGS time scale [40], there seem to be two timescales in use. The USGS, and the ICS. According to the USGS scale, the differences are:

• ICS handles stage/age names, while USGS does not.
• ICS uses the term "Early, Middle, Late" and handle the stages.

Ok, good so far. But I went to the ICS site, and got their official timescale... which uses "Lower, Middle, Upper" exclusively. The only place that uses Early etc. is the USGS, in that their labels say Upper / Late, but this seems like a nod back to ICS? Has ICS eliminated the use of Late and Early and USGS just hasn't updated its scale to reflect this, or is USGS actually endorsing use of Late and Early in the official nomenclature? Either way, since Wikipedia is an international project, shouldn't we prefer the ICS over USGS anyway, especially considering ICS is the source for stage names? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, i.e. for non-specialists. Lower / ... / Upper imply familiarity w basic geology. I'd prefer Early / Middle / Late, which say what they mean. --Philcha (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if they're not official designations, they should at least be lowercase. And then we may as well start using things like mid-Cretaceous, etc. All the paleo papers I have seem to use upper/lower so there may be OR issues involved too if we're essentially making up a timescale not used by the pros. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Paleobiology database (pbdb.org) uses both forms. I see no problem with Late/Early. It's certainly not OR, the question is is it too informal. I think not - either is acceptable in my opinion. --Aranae (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Late/Early are used in reference to dates (because dates can be late or early), whereas Upper/Lower are used for stratigraphic position. Thus, the Morrison Formation is an Upper Jurassic rock unit that dates to the Late Jurassic. And yes, that does sound obtuse, but there you go. J. Spencer (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But my question is, who uses them in reference to dates? Is there a governing body akin to the USGS or ICS? Some publication that lays out epoch/subperiod names other than these two? If there are two systems in play here (chronology vs. stratigraphy), do both use, say, Eocene, or does the srat use Eocene and the chron use "Middle Paleogene"? According to both sites I listed above, many of the Cambrrian, Permian, etc. 'mid, upper, lower' epochs have been getting proper names like Eocene, making it seem like these are almost like placeholders until Upper Cretaceous gets its own snazzy name. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it's all the "same" system, except strat uses upper/lower and chronology uses late/early. In practice, it looks like the USGS scale is based on a 2004 version of the ICS scale, stopping at a coarser level, and in general is probably tweaked for the concerns of the USGS. I'd guess the reason the ICS only has upper/lower in use on the scale is in the name of the organization: International Commission on "Stratigraphy". The GSA also has a time scale out (2009) which is slightly different again, incorporating the long Late Triassic, and only using Early/Late. I'd say use the dates and the "fancy" names (your Cisuralians, your Wenlocks, etc.) from the ICS unless there is a recognized alternate structure like the North American Land Mammal Ages, and where a fancy name has not yet been recognized use Upper/Lower or Late/Early where appropriate (Late Jurassic, Lower Cretaceous, etc.). J. Spencer (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Batrachotomus for GA since 14 Sept. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]