Talk:List of fossils

Comment

Ok I have created a basic page, but it has been suggested to turn this into a table for better viewing. I agree and will start to work on that. Anyone else feel free to start adding appropriate links. Nowimnthing 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are these tables done with html?--Likearock 13:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Table

test of table markup

	Mollusca	Porifera	Cnidaria	Platyhelminthes	Nematoda	Annelida	Arthropoda	Echinodermata	Chordata
Precambrian
Cambrian
Ordovician

Alternative Table

	Precambrian	Cambrian	Ordovician	Silurian	Devonian	Carboniferous	Permian	Triassic	Triassic	Jurassic	Cretaceous	Cenozoic
Burgess Shale
Chengjiang
Blah blah

I guess the table idea turns out to be too unwieldy, and your format on the current List of notable fossils with geological time as the preferable main organizing factor, followed by fossil locality (site), as you have done, rather than taxonomy. Where is a relational database when you need it?

Many notable fossils will be in Chordata, and many phyla would be nearly empty. For example, I can’t think of a single notable sponge fossil, but sponges are notable as early multicellular life forms in the Proterozoic that are hardly changed. Generally, the site’s faunal assemblage is important (Burgess Shale), rather than an individual species per se. Sometimes a fossil is famous because it is enigmatic (e.g., Anomalocaris and Climactichnites).

I wonder if entry on the page should be predicated on there being an existing wiki page devoted to it (or at least a stub).

Thus, the nesting would be time>locality>genus/species. >> see possible compact format added to Cambrian paragraph

I note that the current List of fossil sites page has many sites I’ve never heard of, and is missing many sites I have heard of.

lol always something else that needs to be done. I guess you might expect that in an encyclopedia driven by interests. So we have a hundred pages on Pokemon and missing essential science stuff. Oh well, every little bit helps.

I've found it difficult to find many fossils with their own page. Most are incorporated, unevenly, into the species page. I don't know about the earlier fossils, but I do think the human evolution fossils merit their own pages. Which is why I have created a lot of them as stubs. Later I would like to get multi-angle shots of the fossils and I don't think that kind of detail woud fit well on a species page.

I do not mean to lecture, but Jane and the named human fossils are extreme rarities. Jane cost millions to excavate and prepare, and has an entire museum built around her. Most notable fossils are known by a genus (usually a species), and usually will have a holotype from which it was scientifically described. There could be thousands of specimens of a notable fossil in existence. Take Archaeopteryx, notable from its beauty and as a transition fossil – there are several, the first found around 1860. Megalosaurus was the first dinosaur to be scientifically described around the time Darwin reached puberty. There are tons of Gunflint Stromatolites (made great arrowheads for Native Americans I’ve been told) – its been only 40 years since microorganisms were described in it. Haikouella is chordate-like, and thus involved in the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate, a very contemporary, ongoing debate. The fossils from Bundenbach in Germany are profoundly beautiful, but I’m unaware of ant notable scientific knowledge derived from them. Thus, each notable fossil (or fossil site) has its own historical and scientific context and represents a unique contribution of the fossil record to accumulated scientific knowledge and theories. All the above and more make it difficult for me to know how best to construct this page to have utility.--Likearock 12:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at the discussion on Fossil, I think this page is more what other intended when they created the Fossil record page.

As a rock hound, do you agree with lumping all the earlier eras into precambrian? I know it is more of a deprecated term, but I didn't think there would be enough fossils to merit several more eras listed. Nowimnthing 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the Ediacaran fauna of the late Proterozoic, there is pretty much nothing but stromatolitic structures in the Precambrian. There are putative (controversial) molecular fossils from the early-mid Archaean. Precambrian should suffice for now.--Likearock 12:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess we may have to be more broad about what we accept. Maybe we should add species pages that describe the fossil finds, and work on adding that info to the pages that don't. here is another try at a table.

Nowimnthing, why don’t you just make choices and charge off. I’ll pop in from time to time. I have some other pet projects to work on: helping finish the fossils page, and I find the trilobite’s pages in need of some TLC, including extrication of spam-like extraneous stuff. BTW, if you choose the table format below, probably “described as in a publication” rather than “discovered” should be used. But, I actually like your existing list the best. It might grow long though, which would be a metric of success. If you put some links to it from paleo and geo pages, you might attract some paleo and geo wikipedians to help grow the list. Also, I have many fossils and digital camera, and could provide some pictures at some point.--Likearock 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

	Common Name	Genus/Species	Age	Location	First Discovered
Precambrian
Cambrian
Ordovician