Talk:List of fossil sites/Archive 1
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Lake Mungo
Although this area is classed as archaelogical it has some palaeontological relevance. Enlil Ninlil 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Mechanics
It may be just me, but I cannot scroll to the bottom of this page. Jinns in the program, no doubt.
IMO, I would have much more fun using this table if it were chronological instead of geographical. I suppose at least half the users will disagree with that one.
Finally, could the sites with hominid or ancestral-to-hominid remains be designated? Maybe something as simple as asterisking them would work; you have enough columns to worry about as it is.
Proposed merger
I'm against Dysmo's proposed merger with the list of dinosaur bearing rock formations. The latter is just too useful on its own.Abyssal (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I believe that is so, and would make this page too long. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would support merge as this page should end up duplicating everything on that page if it lives up to it's title. Otherwise we need to rename this page. I think the dinosaur page is too specific, there are surely non-dinosaur fossils in many of the formations listed. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dinosaurs are so important historically and relevant culturally that I think they should get there own page, honestly. Abyssal (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- What if you used a sortable table with a column for major species or genus? then users could easily pull out the dino info. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dinosaurs are so important historically and relevant culturally that I think they should get there own page, honestly. Abyssal (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Sites
I would add Hakel In Lebanon, a rather famous site for it's marine fossils.One not in use (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. Be bold! Awickert (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by One not in use (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
missing ?
I think literature reference abbreviation should be included as crossreference. Perhaps not necessary as table (it si hundred of sites, but as wiki linked-string (spatially and next temporally ordered?). If red perhaps somebody link it; great if if blue. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oslo graben
What about adding several places within the Oslo graben, where marine fossils from ordovician and silurian are widely found within layers of mudstone? Sample picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ordovicium-Silurian.jpg More information: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.17.220 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Indus river
Perhaps this should be added? This was supposedly where transitional fossils of the whale, like Ambulocetus Natans was found. Eik Corell (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)