This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I note that this article includes a section on paleontology, with notes about Cheiragonidae family members. If these are the taxa discusses in the Schweitzer\Salva article then there should be some notation that the fossils are MUCH older then the archeological site being from the Eocene Hoko river formation. The paper lists the type locality for Montezumella eichhorni, the Cheiragonid referred to in the paper as being near west Kydikabbit, does this even fall in the Archeological Site? --Kevmin (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply