Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Extinction/Archive 5
 | 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Extinction talk page (Discussion page).
 |
|---|
The place to make a proposal, suggestion or to discuss a certain topic!
Frustrated with the scope
Not expecting anyone to reply anyway but I have always felt a little frustrated with the ambiguity of recently extinct species such as the Great Auk etc. with creatures long extinct. I feel these two groups are somewhat disparate and placing them under one banner is weird. Not sure how others feel. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay... this has been much harder to reply to than I originally thought it would be. Let me open by saying that I started writing in support of what Casliber was saying, but found myself sitting on the fence at the end. Sorry to state the obvious to a group that clearly understands the scope of this topic in depth, but when we talk about extinctions, the topic can be split many ways: big events vs. natural rate, current/on-going vs. ancient, human-induced vs. "naturally occurring," causes vs. victims, or extinction event causes vs. effects (adaptive radiation). Splitting along any of these lines is problematic. For example, how do we know which species were going to be lost anyway due to the natural rate of extinction during the middle of a large extinction event? (The natural rate doesn't pause during an extinction event.) Current extinctions and the on-going extinction event are tied to past extinctions by the natural extinction rate. (When exactly did an event start/end, and who was the first/last victim?) In the case of human-induced vs. "naturally occurring," consider that humans are just as much of a natural force, albeit biological, as volcanism, a meteor strike, climate change, etc. And splitting along the lines of causes vs. victims or extinction event causes and effects don't make much sense either. So, honestly, I don't know. I know what Casliber is saying, because it would also feel funny to me to see the WP:Extinction banner on the Tyrannosaurus talk page. There is always WP:Palaeontology to handle ancient extinct species. Maybe WP:Extinction's scope should just be the general topic of extinction (causes, natural rate, large events--past and present, etc.), detailed coverage of the on-going mass extinction (the Holocene extinction, which in my opinion is just a continuation of the Quaternary extinction event), and the species affected by the most recent event or lost recently via the natural rate. Does that make sense? –Visionholder (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Like all things in natural history, there is no clear line of division and so it does become an academic exercise. Visionholder has some great points - especially about the Holocene extinction being just an extension of the Quaternary extinction; remember also that the Holocene is an epoch and the Quaternary is a period. I'll try to give a bit of a review to see if something can be made of it. We now have multiple terms to contend with - Late Pleistocene extinction, Quaternary extinction, Holocene extinction, Anthropocene extinction:
- "The first phase of the current extinction episode started ≈50,000–100,000 years ago, when modern humans began dispersing around the planet (Late Pleistocene-Quaternary extinction). The second phase started 10,000 years ago with further population increases and land-use changes associated with the invention of agriculture (Holocene extinction). A third phase of environmental alteration and bio diversity loss was ushered in by the industrial revolution (Anthropocene extinction)."[1] - emphasized parts added.
- On a larger paleontological time scale - these three phases constitute the sixth major extinction event. Hence, I think that the division needs to be one of convention (such as a Global Stratigraphic Section and Point), but until this is done I think that the banner of extinction can only be organized through a time reference. For comparison,
- Hoplophoneus is listed as a fossil in the conservation status because it died out 23.8 million years ago;
- Smilodon is listed as extinct in the conservation status because it died out ~10,000 years ago;
- Dodo is listed as extinct with an IUCN conservation status bar in the conservation status because it died out ~1700 AD;
- Thylacine listed as extinct with an IUCN conservation status bar in the conservation status because it was last seen in 1936.
- While some species that are currently going extinct may be part of the normal background extinction - it is impossible to separate the cause from all that is going on in the world. Hence, by virtue of association with humans as the causal factor[2] they (Smilodon, Dodo, Thylacine) are part of the sixth extinction, whereas Hoplophoneus is a fossil that has no affiliation with the sixth major extinction event. This pattern seems to be reflected in the conservation status bars. For some reason, however, Smilodon does not have an IUCN conservation status bar - perhaps it is conceptualized as a Holocene extinction, whereas the Dodo and Thylacine are conceptualized as Anthropocene extinctions? Some of the records become more confusing around the mid-Pleistocene, but for the most part - there is a relatively clear distinction between human and climatic impacts (e.g., [3], [4]). For another discussion on time boundaries in this context you might be interested in taking a look at the GSA article on the Anthropocene:[5] The GSA article does not give a time frame for when the Anthropocene started - but mentions 1800 as a possible/arbitrary time reference.Thompsma (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- late quaternary birds are normally listed as prehistoric (e.g. several Moa species), we should do the same with the late quaternary mammals (e.g. Dire Wolf, Wooly Mammoth, Smilodon). Extinct should be only used for extinctions after 1500 (an IUCN given year for Recent extinctions). --Melly42 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Great post Melly42! I had forgotten about the 1500 AD time point used by the IUCN and as a generally agreed upon convention this kinda resolves the scope of the problem.
"Humans have played a significant role in the extinction of species prior to historic times (see Box 3.9) but the true extent of such anthropogenic impacts during the Holocene (the last 11,000 years) remains unclear. However, after 1500 AD it is clear that humans are responsible for most recorded extinctions."[6]Thompsma (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't read this entire discussion, but I assumed this project was restricted to animals that have become extinct within historic times (4th millennium BC)? Otherwise it is rather redundant, as we have the paleontology project. Maybe rename it "recent extinctions", or at least change the written scope, so it isn't so general. I do not agree that this should be restricted to the time after 1500, since animals such as Lapitiguana, the Insular Cave Rat, the Conquered Lorikeet and Coryphomys, to name a few, would then be excluded, and are not covered by the paleontology project either. And by the way, the image used in the logo is inappropriate, it is a copy of a copy of a Roelant Savery painting... FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, this project is not restricted to recent extinctions. And I don't agree that is redundant for that reason, because than other projects (like dinosaurs, pterosaurs, sea monsters, birds, mammals, etc.) can be considered redundant as well. But as discussed above, it is not easy to split "extinction" into one for just recent extinctions, because where do you start? What is considered recent (when not using the year 1500)? Start Polynesian expansion? Or when humans left Africa? Where did you get 4th millennium BC as a starting point? I'm curious! I don't have problems with overlap with other projects, as most have overlap. The Palaeontology project has for example an overlap with the biology, ecology, etc. And many project can be considered general. Extinction is extinction as palaeontology is palaeontology. The Palaeontology project can than be considered general as well as its scope contains palaeontologists and their work, extinct species (not all), and areas that overlap with geology, life science, botany, etc). However, although I don't agree with the reasons you mention, I'm not against creating a project for recent extinctions only. And is a copy of a copy of a Roelant Savery painting inappropriate? Not to me anyway, but feel free to create another logo. Peter Maas\talk 16:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't read this entire discussion, but I assumed this project was restricted to animals that have become extinct within historic times (4th millennium BC)? Otherwise it is rather redundant, as we have the paleontology project. Maybe rename it "recent extinctions", or at least change the written scope, so it isn't so general. I do not agree that this should be restricted to the time after 1500, since animals such as Lapitiguana, the Insular Cave Rat, the Conquered Lorikeet and Coryphomys, to name a few, would then be excluded, and are not covered by the paleontology project either. And by the way, the image used in the logo is inappropriate, it is a copy of a copy of a Roelant Savery painting... FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
help needed with elephant evoltuion article
I am writng an article on elephant evolution. If anyone is interested please try and improve it. EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I just started the article, and am looking for an image of the boundary. The boundary means some noticeable level of sediment in the rock, right? I'm new to this. Is there an image containing this boundary that I could add to the article? I have no idea where to look. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Although the "Cenomanian-Turonian extinction event" happened after, can it still be used as a synonym for "The Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event"? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Automatic taxobox might require extinction dagger format rehaul
All,
The {{automatic taxobox}} template is being tested right now as fully as possible, and we've just realized the extinction dagger will no longer be able to be displayed in precisely the same way as before without doing some major recoding (although there are reasonable workarounds. However, we're offering two alternatives, and we'd like your opinion.
Here's the way it is displayed in {{taxobox}}:
Order: †Glosselytrodea
The dagger can be included as part of the link's display text (which means you'll need to type the dagger):
Order: †Glosselytrodea
Or a parameter such as "extinct=yes" could be used to automatically add a dagger next to the taxon level instead of next to the taxon name.
† Order: Glosselytrodea
Order (†): Glosselytrodea
Order: † Glosselytrodea
Post your thoughts; thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of comment I will proceed to apply the
† Ordersolution suggested above. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Are these Panthera leo melanochaitus, Panthera leo leo, or both?
Pictures of taxidermied specimens in Paris have recently been added to the respective artcles, but I noticed they depict the same specimens. The Commons description for each only mention one name, but in this page[7] (scroll down) it appears that there is one of each. Anymone have some better info on this? FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, I will see if I can find the answer. Peter Maas\talk 15:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- See that you got already an answer at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Are_these_Panthera_leo_melanochaitus.2C_Panthera_leo_leo.2C_or_both.3F. I will change it on Commons. Peter Maas\talk 16:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
RfC
Please see Template talk:Geological range#RfC: Rewording of "fossil range" for a proposal to modify the fossil range template. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Physical geologic driver
The section Extinction event#Physical geologic driver is in need of attention. Has WP:jargon and possible WP:SYN problems. Vsmith (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
help needed with elephant evoltuion article
I am writng an article on elephant evolution. If anyone is interested please try and improve it. EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I just started the article, and am looking for an image of the boundary. The boundary means some noticeable level of sediment in the rock, right? I'm new to this. Is there an image containing this boundary that I could add to the article? I have no idea where to look. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Although the "Cenomanian-Turonian extinction event" happened after, can it still be used as a synonym for "The Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event"? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)