Talk:Maastricht Formation
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maastricht Formation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paleobiota help
[edit]Code
[edit]This section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.
Premade rowspans:
| rowspan="2" |
| rowspan="3" |
| rowspan="4" |
| rowspan="5" |
| rowspan="6" |
| rowspan="7" |
Replacement headings for "Presence" column
! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material
Replacement headings for "Taxa" column
Cell background colors
[edit]The background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.
Color key
|
Notes Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; |
Red for reclassified and preoccupied
|style="background:#fbdddb;" |
Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:
|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |
Dark grey for discredited taxa:
|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |
Peach for Ichnotaxa:
|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |
Light blue for Ootaxa:
|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |
Light green for Morphotaxa:
|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |
Is the Maastricht Formation entirely Danian, not Maastrichtian?
[edit]According to the taxobox, the Maastricht Formation is dated 66–65.5 Ma. The Danian, according to the article on that stage, lasted from 66.0 to 61.6 Ma. Does this mean that there is no overlap between the Maastricht Formation and the Maastrichtian stage? Peter Brown (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good question. Unfortunately the shifted date for the official K-Pg date leaves many previous studies that rounded to 66 or stuck to the well-accepted 65.5 Ma for the terminal K are now either referencing the wrong age or are in need of re-calibration, which seems uncomfortably like original research. For example, the vast majority of sources place the Hell Creek dinosaur fauna at 65.5 Ma, which is now Cenozoic! Either the original dating was not precise enough, or it was more precise than the official number, leaving us with T. rex in the Danian. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Picture
[edit]I removed the picture because it is based on the imagination of one user. Dutch biologists see it as speculative. Only one bone of this species has been found . Moreover, it is uncertain if it is a species, and we know nothing about it, so there is no basis for a drawing like this, best regards HenriDuvent (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Stub-Class Geology articles
- Low-importance Geology articles
- Low-importance Stub-Class Geology articles
- WikiProject Geology articles
- Stub-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- Stub-Class Palaeontology articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles
- Stub-Class dinosaurs articles
- Low-importance dinosaurs articles
- WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
- Stub-Class Netherlands articles
- All WikiProject Netherlands pages