Talk:Fezouata Formation

_{Subscript text}

Significance

Isn't the significance of this discovery in it's being the latest faunal assemblage of its type? This didn't seem stressed and might be missed by the reader.--Wetman (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

At first blush I agree, but the authors of the article don't really stress this point; as I understand it, lagerstatte such as the Soom Shale, Hunsruck and Eramosa as well as smaller Ordovician lagerstatte from unusual environments could be considered BS-type lagerstatten? At least, they are lagerstatten with soft-tissue preservation. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The paper, which I have before me, stresses that "The new discoveries... indicate that the Burgess Shale-type fauna continued to have an important role... well after the Middle Cambrian, and prompt a re-assessment of the structure of post-Cambrian Palaeozoic communities". (p217). Similarly, in the abstract: "It is clear that the biotas of Burgess Shale type persisted after the Cambrian and are preserved where suitable facies appear". And so, by implication, the former idea that these communities went extinct during the later Cambrian is conclusively refuted. As a matter of fact, re Wetman, I think this may be the latest known appearance of the Burgess Shale biota. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1038/news.2010.234 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections, and seems reasonable as others are all named this way  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Fezouata formation → Fezouata Formation – Consistent naming with Formation in capital. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Echinoderms

Bookmkaring for myself [1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)