Template:Did you know nominations/Cretomerobius

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Cretomerobius[edit]

(

)

... that the extinct brown lacewing Cretomerobius is known from both the Cretaceous and Eocene?

Reviewed: Carnufex

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 02:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC).

A couple of points. The wording of the hook doesn't make sense to me. I presume the hook is implying that cretomerobius an extinct lacewing that existed in the Cretaceous and Eocene periods—perhaps an alternative hook of ... that Cretomerobius was a lacewing that existed in the Cretaceous and Eocene periods? Secondly, I can't seem to see a reference for the statement that cretomerobius was in existence during the Eocene (Ypresian) period. The first sentence of the "History and classification" section provides adequate referencing for the Cretaceous (Aptian) claim but aside from a mention of Ypresian in the introduction, I can't find another mention or supported citation for that. Thanks, matt (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mattgirling:Known is a fairly common wording for fossil species, as it indicated the times that fossils are identified from and implies that other fossils may be found in the intervening times but arent yet found. I have added an additional reference for the age of the Klondike Mountain Formation.--Kev min § 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, new source taken in good faith. Is it common to have "Cretaceous" and "Eocene" as standalone proper nouns? I'm sure (as an established non-expert in this field!) that I've always heard it succeeded by a common noun such as "period". The Cretaceous article uses both methods, the former more frequently, but I wanted to check with you before giving this the all-clear. Cheers, matt (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's quite normal actually, and the common noun descriptors are not normally used by paleontologists writing about fossils, and usually are only seen in lay articles. --Kev min § 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but the usage of both in the article threw me off! Any how, good to go—hook now fully cited (in good faith), date and length of article are fine. matt (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)