Talk:Paleontology in Oregon

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paleontology in Oregon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Paleontology in Oregon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 February 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that within the United States, dinosaur fossils (example pictured) have been found in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wyoming, but not in Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States.

Wikipedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dinosaurphilosophy. Peer reviewers: WoodPig.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some (hopefully) helpful suggestions edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is a helpful and clear introduction to Oregon's prehistory, but would benefit immensely from an update. Paleontological research in the state is an issue near and dear to my heart, so I'll happily contribute to the update. Here are some general points to consider:

The article is fully cited, but draws on relatively few resources, all of which are out of date. Half of the footnotes are drawn from Murray's 42-year-old fossil guide, which itself was not focused explicitly on Oregon fossils. Several texts devoted specifically to Oregon's fossils and geology have been published since this article was last updated^[1]^[2]^[3].
While the article is not explicitly biased, it is skewed by its relatively few resources. In particular, the "Indigenous interpretations" section is drawn entirely from Adrienne Mayor's work and would benefit from mention of criticisms raised against her thesis^[4].
Discussion of active paleontological research in the state focuses entirely on popular media reporting and does not include any reference to peer-reviewed work. Both the University of Oregon and Oregon State University have active research programs and the John Day Fossil Beds Monument regularly hosts visiting researchers. These ongoing research programs deserve mention in an article about their research topic. There are also amateur fossil hunting efforts hosted by organizations such as the Willamette Valley Pleistocene Project.
The list of natural history museums doesn't include the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. (This would be a minor edit and so I'll likely just go ahead and add that immediately.)
While this isn't necessarily a problem, it might be useful to distinguish different kinds of paleontology studied in Oregon. The state is host to researchers working in paleobotany, invertebrate paleontology, vertebrate paleontology, and paleoecology; the article also mentions previous work done in paleoichnology. Giving each of these sub-disciplines their own sections could help readers to locate information more easily or to understand better the breadth of paleontological research.

And a couple of relatively minor technical points:

The current organization of the article suggests a category mistake. Distinguishing a discussion of paleontology in Oregon into "prehistory" and "history" implies that recorded history is a part of paleontology. This in turn implies (first) that history is a subject of paleontological study and (second) that paleontologists would therefore study themselves. (Forgive me; I have a background in philosophy!) A better way to organize the article's information might be to distinguish between Research and Findings.
Discussion of the Lake County ichnofossils should include mention of the relevant ichnotaxon. Paleontologists may speculate about the makers of fossil tracks, but the possibility that some undiscovered organism might have been the real tracemaker implies that trace attributions are always somewhat doubtful; as a result, paleontologists maintain separate taxonomies for trace fossils and body fossils^[5]^[6]. Reference to the bear track ichnotaxon would therefore be helpful to researchers looking for that information.

Looking forward to working on these!

Dinosaurphilosophy (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Orr, Elizabeth L.; Orr, William N. (2009). Oregon Fossils (Second ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87071-573-0.
^ Orr, Elizabeth L.; Orr, William N. (2012). Oregon Geology (Sixth ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87071-681-2.
^ Bishop, Ellen M. (2006). In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 978-0-88192-789-4.
^ MacLeod, Norman (2006). "Palaeontologists among the first peoples? Review of "Fossil Legends of the First Americans."" (PDF). Palaeontologia Electronica. 9 (2). Retrieved 23 April 2017.
^ Pemberton, S. George; Frey, Robert W. (1982). "Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma". Journal of Paleontology. 56 (4): 843–881.
^ Bertling, Markus; et al. (2006). "Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach". Lethaia. 39 (3): 256–286. doi:10.1080/00241160600787890. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)

Major improvements edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The recent edits by DinosaurPhilosophy have greatly improved the article. I suggest to re-rank it to a B-class or higher for quality (I am not familiar for the rules for changing ranks). Answer.to.the.rock (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Was Arctotherium really Oregon? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How do we know the certain fossil we found belonged to an Arctotherium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] Orr, Elizabeth L.; Orr, William N. (2009). Oregon Fossils (Second ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87071-573-0.

[2] Orr, Elizabeth L.; Orr, William N. (2012). Oregon Geology (Sixth ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87071-681-2.

[3] Bishop, Ellen M. (2006). In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 978-0-88192-789-4.

[4] MacLeod, Norman (2006). "Palaeontologists among the first peoples? Review of "Fossil Legends of the First Americans."" (PDF). Palaeontologia Electronica. 9 (2). Retrieved 23 April 2017.

[5] Pemberton, S. George; Frey, Robert W. (1982). "Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma". Journal of Paleontology. 56 (4): 843–881.

[6] Bertling, Markus; et al. (2006). "Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach". Lethaia. 39 (3): 256–286. doi:10.1080/00241160600787890. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]