Talk:2010 in paleontology

Ojoceratops, Rubeosaurus, Tatankaceratops, and Utahceratops
These are the names of four ceratopsian genera that were recently added to this list. However, I question their validity, largely in part because the user who added these names did not fill in the reference they provided, and also partly because I could find nothing over the internet, aside from a few blog pages, to suggest that these names have recently been published as valid taxon. Unless a valid source can be provided, I don't know if we ought to keep these names listed or not. And, action! (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're being published in an upcoming book. The names were leaked early by George Olshevsky. Abyssal (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright then. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New Species
Is is kosher to add new species that were added onto existing genera (ie Crocodylus anthropophagus)?

-Louis B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.104.167 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I don't see why new species can't be added, despite the list consisting strictly of genera right now. I'd say just make sure that the specific name is included, so it doesn't seem like the genus was named this year. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd start a second table for new species referred to prexisting genera. Abyssal (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been adding "new species in existing genera" to the existing tables. It seems overly complicated to have separate tables, in my opinion.  I also note that the mammal table is the only one that specifies genera in the title while all the other just say newly named.  PS I'm also a little leery of the need to have homonids as a seperate table. -- Kev  min  § 01:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on the part about adding new species to existing genera-related tables. As long as the link goes to the genus page, if the entire genus is extinct, or to the species page, if there are extant species in the genera. With regards to the homonids, I'm not sure if extinct humans or human-like creatures really stand out from other mammals or not, so I won't comment any further than that. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not include the species names by default? There's nothing special about genera, and we haven't been including newly named families as new taxa. Our "genera" right now are just shorthand for species anyway. The focus on genera seems to be a spillover from WP:Dinosaurs, where genera are treated as default, but this isn't the case in all of paleo. Just look at early hominids. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if the genus is new, only the genus name should be present in the name column to indicate that it is a new genus. If the genus is monotypic, the species could be mentioned in the notes column. Maybe just replace "Name" with "Taxon", keep the genera as they are, add new species that belong to preexisting genera, and add higher-level taxa like families. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think new species from old genera should get their own tables, lumping them with newly erected genera leaves too much room for confusion. Don't forget that if the page gets too cluttered we can always split it. Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont see where the confusion will be coming from though, especially if the column is renamed to "taxon" as suggested by Smokeybjb.-- Kev min  § 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm warming to Matt's idea to list everything as species. Abyssal (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But if everything was listed as a species, there would be no indication that the genus is new. I still think that any taxon should be included, I don't see the confusion in that. Maybe a column specifying taxonomic rank would be clearer, although if we were to include clades that don't follow traditional ranking that would be a problem. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Smokeybjb. That is how it's been done before, if 2009 in paleontology is any indication, and there's been little to no confusion. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it important if the genus is new? We don't list new families or new infraorders, or even new clades. We should either be listing species, or taxa of any level/rank/type. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can list all levels of clades, but we don't necessarily have to do it in one table. Abyssal (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since all taxa are pretty much considered clades nowadays, I don't see why we should make a table of clades separate from a table of species/genera/subfamilies/families/superfamilies etc., if that's what you mean Abyssal. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one good reason for separate tables is that the columns for higher-order clades and species would be incompatible. Columns for the clade table would probably be something more like Clade, Status (in use/defunct), Authors, Type (branch,node,etc), Definition, Notes. None of the columns that give useful information for species apply to the clades and vice versa. Abyssal (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for most genera (except dinosaur genera, which are an exception in that they're almost always monotypic and equivalent to species). MMartyniuk (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you. Abyssal (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean genera could theoretically also require a completely different table system. They're kind of shoehorned into the we have now. The current tables on only genera don't list some important things like type species, and include some info that doesn't apply to them (formation, time period). This info may be correct when the genus is first named because new genera are usually monotypic. But later this info becomes defunct. An entry on Genus x may list its formation. But if additional species are added later, the old listing is out of date and needs to be revised, but then that's confusing because in an article based on year, it's misleading as it implies the two formations were known to contain the genus at the time of its discovery. Right now, on thee pages genera are treated as equivalent to species, but this is incorrect. This is true even grammatically-- Silesauridae is a "newly named dinosauriform [taxon]" just as much as Asilisaurus is. Both sound a little odd when you say it like that, because technically speaking, Asilisaurus is a group of dinosauriformes, even though it only contains one member, Asilisaurus kongwe. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was first planning the table I meant for the formation/location to refer to the type species. I probably should have told someone or something. >_< I left the word type out of the column title for width and clutter reasons. I don't see what's wrong with treating genera as species, since most fossil genera are monospecific anyway. Going with your idea to list species instead of genera would be a good idea, and I like another user's idea to have a column for whether a species is a type species. But I still think a separate table for higher order clades is much better than lumping all of them together. Abyssal (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could make the binomial names bold for new genera, just so we don't have to mention something's a new genus in a new column, which would clutter the table. Or we could use color keys to indicate if it is a valid new genus and species, valid new species of an old genus, a junior synonym, or dubious a genus and species. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we replace the "year discovered" column, which is typically empty because the information is hard to find. That would keep the table the same size it is already. Abyssal (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so we all can agree on something, here's a preliminary example of some tables. I've made new species belonging to new genera bold. We could make a key to explain that, or just mention it in the lead section.


 * Smokeybjb (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. Though I'm still not sure why new genera are given more importance than new species. Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis is just a new name for boring old animal that's been known and studied for nearly 100 years. Crocodylus anthropophagus is an honest to god new animal previously unknown to science. Strange that people seem to think new names are cooler than new animals. If anything, we should have some way of indication New Species/New Genus, New Species/Old Genus, and Old Species/New Genus. Note that the first two are identical kinds of new biological entities, and the third is an act of nomenclature. Add in previously unrecognized new species (like the Clouded leopard) and this keeps getting stickier. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Abyssal's version
I thought I'd put up my own preferred version. Basically the same as Smokey's but with minor tweaks. Tables are headed by page division rather than rows to preserve sorting function that breaks with the title row. Separate column for definitions. Species table has "Novelty" column to denote what's new about a taxon, the genus, species, both, or combination. Some minor cosmetic changes as well. Abyssal (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New species

 * Looks good to me. I'd go with this, and also explain different kinds of novelty in the lead section to make this clearer to readers. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not clear enough we can try a different term. That was just the first way of putting it that popped into my head. If anyone has any suggestions, let's hear 'em. :) Abyssal (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything better. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've considering changing the unit and location columns to just being the unit and location the type specimen of the species is from. 'Cause if it was a widespread species and we listed all of them things might get out of control. Abyssal (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Having the units and locations be for the entire species would be misleading because it could imply that the species was described from those localities in that particular year alone. I think it might be better to show all the locations/units that a species was found in according to its first description, in case several localities/units were identified in that description. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. If their ranges grow outside the initially reported ones we can always make note of that in the article on the year that the known range was expanded. Abyssal (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus in support of the table format I proposed in this section? Abyssal (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. I like this format, and no one else has said anything otherwise. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, if no one expresses any opposition I'm going to begin implementing it across the articles. I'm thinking of changing the "Unit" column to "Source" since not all discoveries are reported from specific geologic units (like recent fossils found in caves or eroded from river sediment). Abyssal (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A forgotten ?
Hi, where is Carduelis aurelioi ? --92.155.150.62 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2010 in paleontology. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711015906/http://www.foreignpolicybulletinmonitor.com/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7908884&fulltextType=RC&fileId=S0016756810000671 to http://www.foreignpolicybulletinmonitor.com/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7908884&fulltextType=RC&fileId=S0016756810000671

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 in paleontology. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414161141/http://www.carnegiemnh.org/news/10-jan-mar/fedexia/Annals-15Mar2010-Fedexia.pdf to http://www.carnegiemnh.org/news/10-jan-mar/fedexia/Annals-15Mar2010-Fedexia.pdf
 * Added tag to http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?calyLang=eng&journal=cjes&volume=47&year=0&issue=8&msno=e10-028
 * Added tag to http://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/1886536/Montefeltro_et_al._2010.pdf
 * Added tag to ftp://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/Projects/PaleobotanyWyoFieldtripReadings/ManchesterReprints/2010%20Cornelian%20Cherries%20%20Cornus.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)