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)
- Indeed. Dysmorodrepanis 21:19, 1 December 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.
Terry J. Carter (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)