Talk:Hell Creek Formation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uppermost Hell Creek Foundation[edit]

The uppermost limit of the Hell Creek Foundation is described in conflicting ways in the article: it is stated to be "terminating at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary" and also that the famous iridium layer "occurs as a discontinuous but distinct thin marker bedding within the Formation, near its uppermost strata." I'm all but sure the latter statement is the correct one. --Wetman (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but what do we make of of the claim, both in the first paragraph and the infobox, that the formation terminates at 65.5 Ma? That's consistent with the Ir layer being within the formation, since Renne et al. (2013) have shown that the layer is 66.043±0.011 million years old and therefore lies below 65.5 million-year-old Paleocene rock. Is there solid evidence that the formation terminates at 65.5 Ma? If not, I propose that we change the "Stratigraphic range" in the infobox to Maastrichtian – Danian. Peter Brown (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

  • Paul R. Renne; et al. (2013). "Time scales of critical events around the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary". Science. 339: 684–687. doi:10.1126/science.1230492. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Pectinodon[edit]

As it has been suggested as recently as 2013 (By Larson & Currie) that Troodont teeth from Hell Creek are referable to Pectinodon, this should be mentioned.142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the cleanup of Dubious/Synonymous/Falsely Reported taxa I think putting it in has Even more prescendance.Capra walie (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O. elegans[edit]

Why is there no mention of O. elgans (Yes, it is obvious that it isn't an Ornithomimid, but there are four potential candidates for actual genus (Elmisaurus, Anzu, Chirostenotes.)).142.176.114.76 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn this used to be here at some point, must have been trimmed accidentally in some past edit. Will re-add. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added back with disclaimer. Note that "E. elegans" in the Hell Creek is based on the small pes MOR 752. The holotype is from the DPF, at least 10 Ma earlier. The odds of this pes actually being the same species as E. elegans is minuscule. Watch for it to either get a new species name or referred to Anzu. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested at least once that it could be a separate species within Anzu: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/anzu-is-here/#more-3519 142.176.114.76 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hell Creek Formation[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hell Creek Formation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "breithaupt1997":

Reference named "eberth1997":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the White, Fastovsky & Sheehan ref -= could it be "Taphonomy and suggested structure of the dinosaurian assemblage of the Hell Creek Formation (Maastrichtian), eastern Montana and western North Dakota," PD White, DE Fastovsky, PM Sheehan, Palaios 13 (1), 41-51 (1998) JayWarner (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture overload[edit]

A lot of the entries have an overload of pictures, many of which are unnecessary life reconstructions, and a lot probably aren't for free-use. PLEASE cut down on the pictures.Capra walie (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the picture overload include using pictures of often extremely distant living relatives count toward the overload, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I decided to be bold and remove all of the pictures that either did not depict the closest living relatives or were blatantly original research-picked to be pretty.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these pictures are also of species with very tentative presence in this formation and misleadingly use well-known specimens from other formations (especially the various Dinosaur Park fauna). I would suggest if fossil specimen photos are used, even they be limited to specimens that are actually geologically associated with the page's topic formation. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would this image be useful for this article? I have asked Antoine D. Bercovici,PhD in Sedimentology and Palaeobotany, for a scanning image of Aquilapollenites Attenuatus Funkhouser(1961). He was very helpful and gave permission for this image to be used: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aquilapollenites_Attenuatus_Funkhouser(1961).jpg I am currently in the process of creating a biography of John W. Funkhouser, and I intend to use the image on his page. Transparent Eye (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is found at the site, it would be extremely and immensely appropriate to use here.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok --Done - thanks Transparent Eye (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A minor error[edit]

I'm fairly sure the part of the article that says the troodontid teeth found in Hell Creek can be attributed to Acheroraptor is false. While reports of Dromaeosaurus and Saurornitholestes teeth are most likely those of Acheroraptor, I'm fairly certain that teeth that can be definitely attributed to troodontids have been found in the formation. Can someone please change the article, or correct me if I'm mistaken? Thanks in advance.--24.141.100.19 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't directly state it, but it heavily implies it. Either way, the Troodontid teeth aren't mentioned anywhere else here, but they should be. I again propose using Pectinodon for this purpose.Capra walie (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A dubious removal[edit]

For whatever reason, when the excessive imaging was removed, all the intermediate, dubious, synonomous, etc, taxa were removed from the list. The list is far more helpful if they are included, and I see no reason why they aren't. They're still present on all the other major formation pages (Morrison, Dinosaur Park, Yixian, etc.), so I don't know why they were removed. Either way I think they should be put back in place. Help and/or clarification, anyone?Capra walie (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had kept "Nanotyrannus" as a Tyrannosaurus species, as that seems to be the most popular theory; but it looks like somebody made it back into it's own genus on the list. The other genera, though, I'm unsure of why those were removed, myself. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More picture stuff[edit]

We cleaned up a lot of the images, but there's still more then necessary. For the most part, this is ok. However, for no reason whatsoever do we need four pictures of T. rex mounts. Lusotitan (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery of red blood cells[edit]

Hell Creek was the location where two different teams of researchers discovered dinosaur fossils containing high levels of red blood cells, heme etc which was an incredible discovery that has completely thrown scientists for a loop trying to find answers. Why is this not mentioned? This was a breakthrough, not some minor experiment. It seems important to me. Scientists still don't have answers to this riddle. How is this not notable? Are we afraid to open up creationist - evolutionist debates once more? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to tell reader the facts untouched and without opinion? This is VERY important to our understanding of our world. Iheartthestrals (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070222105935/http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/features/paleontology/

It was Mary Higby Schweitzer who found it. Iheartthestrals (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source says nothing about young earth creationism or "throwing scientists for a loop" - the discovery was interesting, but lots of interesting discoveries come from this formation. We are not going to add fringe views to this article. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
unhelpful bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Um, I never said "Make sure we mention how this proves science is wrong." All I suggested is a mention of this discovery. Whatever you believe you can't deny that this is a question for scientists. And I think you will find that this source does in fact discuss the abounding questions in the minds of scientists that came from this discovery. I never mentioned actually wanting to bring up creationist debates, but only asked a question if we are afraid to do so. I fail to see how the discovery, the proven and extraordinary discovery, counts as a 'fringe view'. I suggested commenting on the discovery, not what it means for creationist debates. How can you deny this is important to the understanding of our world? Funny how scientists claim that they want nothing more than to find out how this planet works, but then they turn around and build the facts around what they want to believe. OK, stopping with the debate. My point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a presenter of accurate information. How is telling readers what Mrs. Schweitzer found wrong? And one other thing. Fringe views are still notable, even if they are largely disbelieved (which, in fact, young earth creationism is not). I am not suggesting we build our writing AROUND the fringe theories, but surely people should be told both the mainstream and fringe views on a matter? I just read something on another article about bias in favour mainstream beliefs on Wikipedia, and underrepresentation of less supported views. But my point is that this discovery of Mary Schweitzer's is important and incredible whatever you make of it. I say include it and let people make up their own mind about things. Ugh, everything not to do with supporting evolution is so biased on this website. Sometimes I want to give up on it. Iheartthestrals (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article you came up with is 10 years old. This is not a particularly relevant finding to the formation or its history. As it happens, creationists tend to place a lot more emphasis on this finding than it merits because they interpret it as evidence for a young earth. VQuakr (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I feel like Timothy Messer-Kruse. It shouldn't matter it's ten years old. This isn't a discovery that's results and theories have changed often since then. It is a set-in-stone finding that merited incredible results. Why, may I ask, is this not important?

One more thing. Why the emphasis on 'interpret?' It is evidence whether you believe their beliefs or not. You can't deny that such a discovery helps the creationist cause. Iheartthestrals (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't deny that such a discovery helps the creationist cause." Yes, I can and do deny that. The finding, its mechanism, and the age of the sample are well-understood. You are massively overselling the significance of this particular paper. Lose the persecution complex. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution, eh? Tell me, if you were a diehard evolutionist in a Christian age, and every Wikipedia article was leaving out any evidence for your theory, would you feel like it was biased? Iheartthestrals (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll drop the subject. No wonder most colleges don't view Wikipedia as a reliable resource. Iheartthestrals (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy - Christianity and evolution are not opposites. Also, that attempt to snub Wikipedia (sour grapes) is weak and possibly betrays a lack of understanding of what a reliable source is (or perhaps confirms that lack of understanding that was raised by your concerns in this and other similar threads): even Wikipedia does not accept itself as a reliable source because (among other reasons) it is not consistent or stable. The sources it cites are reliable, however, as many of my college professors have acknowledged. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, trust me, I don't doubt the sources. It is, largely for me, not what is included, but what is omitted. I find that anything that openly contradicts evolution is either omitted or included but instantly struck down as a falsehood, which I think goes beyond mainstream emphasis into racism and bias.

I honestly didn't know that Wikipedia doesn't label itself as a reliable source. That's actually kind of amusing. Iheartthestrals (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? That is not even wrong. Evolution is not a race. Young earth creationism is not a race. They are testable claims about the world (not even opinions). One has enough scientific evidence to convince almost all scientists (and all in any fields that matter) while the other has isolated mistakes (if not frauds) to push a specific interpretation of work of poetic theology that predates scientific thinking by about three thousand years (and even classical models of the scientific method by about a thousand years).
This is according to the sources you admit you do not doubt. We do not create artificial balance between the position held by all experts in a field and those of amateurs who reject the very method of understanding that field. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so racism wasn't the right word. Discrimination is what I meant.

This is said over and over again. I'm not trying to change what the article says. I'm not trying to change them to a Christian viewpoint. I'm not even trying to bring up arguments about Christianity. Before this whole little shots-fired scenario broke out I was trying only to recommend placing a short paragraph, even a sentence, on the discovery of soft tissue and blood vessels by Mary Schweitzer. VQuakr was on the opposite page, downgrading Schweitzer's find as a 'fringe theory.' Whatever you believe on the subject (Christianity, Evolution, Flat-Earth etc.) you have to admit that it was a notable discovery. I had no intention of adding information trying to undermine evolutionary theory. In my first post on this topic, I suggested adding this information to an article. My only mention of creationism is a question if we are afraid that this information might bring up debates. I for one never requested a debate or planned to hijack the information and twist it to a creationist cause. I never meant to bring up creationist debates in this particular talk page, but VQuakr himself actually brought the subject further, not me. I never suggested posting creationist views, and I linked the article because it was requested. I will ask my question one final time. Is the discovery of soft tissue and blood vessels not extraordinary for a (supposedly, but I now know better than to bring that up again) 68 million year old bone? I know that scientists have their theories about how this tissue survived, and if it has to be reported from a pro-evolution view, so be it. Scientists did admit that this discovery brought about question in their understanding of decay, not in theory, but in decay, and so this did in fact bring up questions apart from creationist-related ones. This isn't a question of creationism, it is a question of science, and whatever you believe, it was no doubt an extraordinary discovery for science.

P.S. When I say I don't doubt the sources, I mean that I don't doubt they are reliable in mainstream ways. I don't doubt they reflect present scientific beliefs and are from reliable institutes/magazines etc. I, however, disbelieve these scientific beliefs, and so I believe they are reliable in terms of professional scientific research, but not in my beliefs.

P.P.S. I am truly sorry if I have caused either VQuakr or Ian.thomson offense in my writing. I never intended to, but this talk brought up questions I feel strongly on, and I have a dislike for what I perceive as injustice (even though I understand the reasoning behind this perceived injustice) I would say God Bless, but I'm not sure that would be appreciated. Nevermind, I'll say it anyway. God Bless. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that Schweitzer herself does not consider her findings to be evidence that the fossils are less than 68 My old, right? Her finding is not (AFAIK) a fringe theory, but a conclusion that T. Rex fossils a few thousand years old is a fringe theory. This is indeed a question of science, and we are explaining to you why one paper on fossils in a canyon full of fossils does not rate a mention in an article about the canyon. We also are aware that you have probably been exposed to some pseudoscience that makes incorrect claims about this finding, and feel we have some small degree of responsibility to give you better information. I will accept good faith blessing from anyone. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand she does not believe such. One more time.... I never said anything about adding fringe theories. All I suggested was to include a short piece of information on an important find. You say that it was just a fossil in a canyon of fossils, but how many other fossils in Hell Creek had soft tissue attached? It raised questions in scientists' minds about their understanding of decay, not anything about evolutionary timelines or such. I know this isn't the place to bring up creationist debates, and my point from the first is that this is an important scientific discovery that I feel is worth mentioning. If you feel otherwise, then OK. You have much more experience on Wikipedia than I do, and I shall defer to your judgement.

I do wish to add, however, that I do not appreciate being talked down to so heavily regarding my beliefs. If you think them inaccurate or odd, so be it, but I would appreciate a bit less of the derogatory message to the final sentences. No offence meant. Insult me if you wish, fine, but don't target what I believe please. Please do not refer to it as incorrect automatically without proof. I assure you I do not listen to the Ugandan Christian Radio to End Evolution. My 'pseudoscience' is in fact only so in your opinion and in the opinion of the mainstream. I would appreciate the term 'different' to replace incorrect. Thank you. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Dinosaur#Soft tissue and DNA, Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus#MOR 1125 .28B-rex.29 and Mary Higby Schweitzer for discussion of "soft tissue" fossils. No need for that detail here. Vsmith (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it merits a mention, but very well. I shall drop the matter. Iheartthestrals (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troodontidae not Represented[edit]

Is there any reason that Troodontids are not represented in the boxes, and barely in the text? Acheroraptor was supposed to indicate only one dromaeosaur from the formation, and even that's not held up, but I don't believe there was any reason to think Troodon/Pectinodon bakkeri was invalid, and not present? Lusotitan (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no troodontids have been found so far i believe. Pectinodon is only from the Lance and Dinosaur Park, and Trodden seems to be Lance, Dinosaur Park, Judith River and others but not Hell Creek. IJReid discuss 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article for Pectinodon certainly gives the impression they were found there, and I swear I've read at least one of Phil Currie's paper's mentions it being there. To quote the article for the genus: "In 2013 Currie and Derek Larson concluded that Pectinodon bakkeri was valid and its teeth could be found both in the Lance Formation and the coeval Hell Creek Formation."; this leaves little doubt as to whether the stance in the article is whether it is or is not from the formation. So something is off about this. Lusotitan (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Acheroraptor was supposed to indicate only one dromaeosaur from the formation, and even that's not held up"
Given that there is no overlapping material between Acheroraptor and Dakotaraptor except teeth, and that the authors of Dakotaraptor declined to compare their teeth, I think it's too soon to jump to that conclusion... A more complete Acheroraptor skeleton might prove them to be synonyms. Or it may not. But I noticed even Emily Willoughby is hedging her bets and restored both with almost the same color pattern in the official press releases/papers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although that statement wasn't a particularly important point. While on the topic of stuff that should be on the list, should Edmontonia be switched for Denversaurus, seeing as wikipedia recognizes them as separate. Lusotitan (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithomimus velox?[edit]

I checked both of the sources cited for the presence of O. velox in the HC. Neither of them support its inclusion! If there is another source that can warrant the inclusion of O. velox here, please add it; otherwise, please remove O. velox from this list. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not supported from this formation. It looks like Osborn originally placed some fragmentary AMNH material in this species but it's now regarded as indeterminate and probably belongs to S. sedens or "Orcomimus". Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nilssonia - not a cycad?[edit]

Nilssonia is described on the page as the Hell Creek formation's only cycad, and cycads are mentioned at other points on the page. However, the article on Nilssonia describes it as a bennettitalean, NOT a cycad, and the references on that page are pretty clear about its identity. But other sources I've seen around (eg. FossilWorks) identify Nilssonia as a proper cycad. Which is it? If it is genuinely the only cycad reported from the Hell Creek Fm., but is not actually a cycad, wouldn't that mean that there aren't any cycads in the Hell Creek Formation after all? Think that something needs to be updated, but since not all sources say the same thing, not sure what that update should be. 209.136.39.130 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably an error introduced by this one anonymous editor who was hellbent on screwing up this list with nonsensical original research identifications last year. For now, I just swapped "cycad" with "cycadeoid," while linking to bennettitales.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marine reptiles[edit]

The article briefly mentions that marine reptiles including plesiosaurs and mosasaurs have been discovered here, but makes no mention of them in the list of vertebrate discoveries.Wildernest42 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hell Creek Formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Quetzalcoatlus live in Hell creek?[edit]

Most sources say Texas but they then go on to depict it being in the hell creek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bubblesorg (talk • contribs)

A neck vertebra of a large azhdarchid is known, but, it is unknown whether or not it is Quetzalcoatlus' or not.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanis[edit]

Merging 2 sections on this new topic for ease. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-day-the-dinosaurs-died?[edit]

where is the site of this find located in the hell creek area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.110.36 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly near Bowman, North Dakota.[1] It's likely that the exact location hasn't yet been publicly disclosed. The PNAS paper goes up on Monday and I'm sure all the dino buffs are waiting on the edges of their seats right now. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting too, from 2015: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667115300306 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of skeptical tweets linked from end of this. Also it mentions the site location is definitely not public. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De Palma et al paper[edit]

"A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota"

Robert A. DePalma, Jan Smit, David A. Burnham, Klaudia Kuiper, Phillip L. Manning, Anton Oleinik, Peter Larson, Florentin J. Maurrasse, Johan Vellekoop, Mark A. Richards, Loren Gurche, and Walter Alvarez

The paper is up: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/27/1817407116

This is the one that has been all over the news because it supposedly shows fossils of fish killed directly by tektite fallout from the Chicxulub impact. There is a doi but it doesn't work yet. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science Mag response:[2] 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a twitter #Tanis hash tag with various media links and academics posting.[3] 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist, saying the New Yorker embargo break was agreed with PNAS and was in response to some other publisher getting hold of the story before the PNAS publication. Also there is a #Chicxulub hashtag with some links. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanis site article[edit]

See Tanis (fossil site), in creation.

Enjoy! FT2 (Talk | email) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleological map request - map relating Hells Creek to the Western Inland Sea area at the time of impact?[edit]

Cross posted at Talk:Tanis (fossil site) - please respond here to keep it central

Can anyone help with a suitably licensed version of an academically sound map showing the extent of the Inland Sea and dry land, at the time of impact, and ideally, an indication of the location of present-day North Dakota overlaid (the exact location of the site itself is undisclosed)?

The problem is, that some maps show a large seaway, some show an inland sea that's effectively as closed extension to the Gulf, and some state that by 65.7MYa the sea had mostly dried out and ceased to exist. Many maps also seem to be generic rough outlines, or contradict in their details, and have little if any sign of being paleontologically/geologically well-founded.

It would be very helpful to present some reasonably reliable idea of land levels and coastlines at the time of the KPg impact, so that a reader can see which areas would have been underwater, and which areas, although dry land, would have been low lying and funneled impact waves upward across the region recently below water.

From maps, it looks like the contours might have focussed waves in a 90 degree arc, into the comparatively narrow remaining inland sea, but that's speculative.

Any help resolving the actual terrain so far as it pertains to the time of impact and water/ground levels between Chixculub and Hells Creek (or anything bearing on this) would be very appreciated.

Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try figure 1 from this paper, based on Blakey 2011. Mikenorton (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also check out this on Ron Blakey's website. Mikenorton (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But also see here for yet another Ron Blakey map for the end of the Maastrichtian, which helpfully is the same map as the Figure 1 above, but covers a lot more. Mikenorton (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mikenorton - The first is helpful but doesn't cover the area, and more focused on geology than terrain/depth. Anything else you can think of? The second (deeptimemaps) is heavily copyright blocked - see their FAQ, very commercialized, tightly limited reuse. No chance. The third, however is perfect - right timing (75 + 65 Mya) and full CC license. Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 21:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the second map shows is that Ron Blakey has maybe changed his ideas on the shape of the Inland Sea, but at least you have a map that you can use. Mikenorton (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks! Uploaded to Commons: File:North america 65mya.png and File:North america 75mya.png FT2 (Talk | email) 09:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richardoestesia in hell creek?[edit]

IS there any evidence?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of indeterminate pterosaur[edit]

Is the existence of the indeterminate pterosaur from South Dakota substantiated? The only source for its existence is a fossil and cast supplier's website, not any sort of peer-reviewed article. I think we need to track down a better source before we can include this pterosaur on Hell Creek's faunal lineup. Zach Varmitech (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animals did not lived in geological formations[edit]

I have changed the phrase "Many animals including dinosaurs lived in the Hell Creek Formation" to "Remains of many animals including dinosaurs was found in the Hell Creek Formation". Dinosaurs and other animals did not lived "in" geological formations (sedimentary rock bodies), but open air. Animals were able to live in nearby areas, they did not even have to live necesarely in the same sedimentary environment in which their fossils were found. Was a pterosaur flying inside a rock? Or was a herd of Edmontosaurus grazing inside the rock? We find fossils, and these remains reach the lithosphere through sometimes complex and long processes and may come from animals that lived several kilometers from the place where their remains were buried. This is a frequent mistake in articles about geological formations, please check. --PePeEfe (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I add, the taxa identified in a fossil site did not even have to share habitat, the grouping could have been post-mortem. The answer must be provided by sedimentological and taphonomic studies, not just lists of taxa. --PePeEfe (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've further tweaked the section. Mikenorton (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hell_Creek_Formation&oldid=1207613443"