Talk:Cenozoic

Misdirections
Is it confusing to anyone else that the vertical timeline on the right of the article goes up, as in, the opposite direction that the the text is reading? I stared at this for many seconds before realizing that the reason it did not make sense was that the timeline was like a thermometer, rather than time falling through gravity.

-This is normal for vertical geological timescales. -Tom Bishop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.216.208 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

mispellings?
I wish someone smarter and handier than I would create a box with the time subdivisions in it. Since "Cainozoic" or "Caenozoic" misspellings are mentioned, why leave out "Coenozoic'? Could they be eliminated without harm? (Wetman 18 Sep 2003)
 * Eliminated them today, after a year and a half. Too precipitous and rash? Any book titles with these odd spellings? --Wetman 07:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only just spotted this. Rather late in the day (OK, rather late in the decade), here are some uses of Cainozoic and Kainozoic, bearing in mind that British Caenozoic Fossils has already been added as a ref:
 * Bennison, G.M. & Wright A.E (1969 rep. 1975), The Geological History of the British Isles, London: Edward Arnold. ISBN 0-7131-2226-9. Section VI The Cainozoic Era.
 * "Cainozoic or Kainozoic The division of geological time which succeeds the Mezozoic and ends at the Quaternary". Whitten, D.G.A & Brooks J.R.V (1972), A Dictionary of Geology, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, ISBN 0-14051049-4. How wonderfully ambiguous for a dictionary - does that mean "ends at the end of" or "ends before the beginning of" the Quaternary? There is no definition of Caenozoic, so presumably this is their preferred spelling of the same thing, not a subdivision of it. But hang on - the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica says "Some confusion has been introduced by the use of the term Cainozoic to include, on the one hand, the Tertiary period alone, and on the other hand, to make it include both the Tertiary and the post-Tertiary or Quaternary epochs;". This presumably is the subject of Rastall, R.H. (1944), Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Kainozoic; a geological disaster, Geological Magazine, 81 no. 4; p. 159-165 but I can't get at the text online - anyone have a library handy?

I'd say Kainozoic has fallen out of use, but Cainozoic and Caenozoic are used in Britain, Oz etc, along with Palaeo-, Archaeo-, Encyclopaedia, etc. And whoever introduced the Pal(a)eogene as incorporating the Pal(a)eocene was just having a laugh - or at least had cleaner glasses than mine.. Pterre (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added Caenozoic once again as it is in current use in Britain - see for example thias - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/business-centre/publishing/books/fossils/british-caenozoic-fossils/index.html published by the Natural History Museum, London. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

copyvio

 * chunk of text in overview from columbia, I'll remove. Matt 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * and another chunk from, also removing, then I'll retag as a stub. Matt 17:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction with Mesozoic article
This article reads (in intro), "the Cenozoic is the era when continents moved into their current positions." But the Mesozoic article reads, "The continents gradually shifted from a state of connectedness into their present configuration."

which is correct? they can't both.... --25 October 2006 NCartmell


 * Well configuration is not the same as position. Their relative positions could have been established in the Mesozoic, and their absolute positions established in the Cenozoic. However, since the plates are still moving, their absolute positions and even relative positions are in flux.  The articles should probably say something like for the Mesozoic "recognizable as the current continents" and for the Cenozoic "substantially in their current positions." --Bejnar 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

During the mesozoic the continents approached their present positions Wrglahl LCD söz (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

AMK152's Geotimeboxes
AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article. I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footer, and that other information can be supplied where important, by links from the text. See discussion at Template talk:Geotimebox. --Bejnar 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

animals of this time period
Sorry, I'm not a Wikipedia edit expert, but there's no sense in which large metazoa "dominate" this, or any other period. Most biomass is plants and bacteria. Animals represent a few percent of total biomass and most of them are protostomes. Mammals and birds represent a tiny, tiny proportion of life on Earth. Great graphic here: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:53:C990:9925:6F83:D677:FCC8 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Another terms for the Cenozoic era is the Age of Mammals. Some animals in this period are the Long-horned bison, Platygonus, Mammoth, and Saber-toothed cats. Evidence of these animals are found in fossils. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.165.188.20 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * And your point is? Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  20:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Past tense
Why the past tense in "The Cenozoic was a period of long-term cooling"? I tried to address it but got reverted, so I'm assuming there's a reason for it, but it's beyond me. -- Jao (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As nobody seems to have a reason, I'm switching back to "has been". -- Jao (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix Timeline
I don't know how to fix the timeline template on the top right, but something in it is messed up, the dates and descriptions that usually floated next to the time periods have been pushed down till they overlap the text beneath. This happened after Zorrobot ran, as I was reading the page in a good state, came back after some clicks, and it was broken. I couldn't even figure out how to copy and paste an old version of the timeline template in. 72.205.23.162 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

miscellany
The pronunciation falderal at the beginning is an unnecessary distraction. Anyone literate enough to read the article should be literate enough to known the pronumceation of Cenozoic. Alternative and defunct spellings are also unnessessary. It is sufficient simply to say -- The Cenozoic Era, meaning "new life" from the Greek is the most recent _____-

Under Techtonics, Geologically is used (if I'm not mistaken -it's been years) adverbally but links to Geology as a noun which does not elucidate on the (?) adverbial usage. The is no reason to include the word. It would be just as well to say -- The Cenozoic is the era when the continents moved into their present position -- and leave out geologically altogether.

misdirections, this page. No it isn't confusing nor should it be. This apparent contradiction is common in the literature where charts "young" going up and texts progress from older to younger in the "opposite direction". No problem here. tense trivia not all that important. Leave it for the original writer or follow the earlier theme. On the "Geo-time box", I agee, the box information in the footer is ample.

user:J.H.McDonnell 2/16/09 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

K-T impact - cooling significance
My understanding (unreferenced like the mention in the article) of the cooling from the K-T impact was that it was on the order of a few years, and therefore not significant when considering geological time such as this? I would suggest removing that line. GBM (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too - zapped it. Awickert (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Quaternary
Along with my comment on Talk:Neogene, I think the the infobox at top right should have Neogene end at the Plio/Pleistocene boundary, and Quaternary take over, as per the ICS definition. This would also bring it into line with the article Geologic time-scale. Any thoughts? Awickert (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maastrichtian KT Dinosaur Controversy
The KT dinosaur extinction is controversial and is missrepresented in that context. The upper Maastrichtian extinction marks the end of the non avian dinosaurs. Only reworked Cretaceous specimens have been found in the lower Maastrichtian. Because of the high sample frequency of the late Maastrichtian Signor-Lipps effect does not apply [1]. Multuple references given among then Barera and Keller, Macleod and keller, Smit and Zachariasse and Smith and Jeffrey.

[1] 'Evolution on Planet Earth..' Rothschild & Lister by Macleod pp253-277. Morbas (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement "It is marked by the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous that saw the demise of the last non-avian dinosaurs and the end of the Mesozoic Era. The Cenozoic era is ongoing." is not supported by reference. I would like to see papers on digs that uncovered dinosaurs at the KT event. The KT event is one of the most researched events in the Phanerozoic Eon. Where is this statement's reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbas (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This paper seems clear enough Morbas. I know that you're very keen to have the extinction earlier, but I don't see any evidence to support that. Mikenorton (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, glad to hear from you again...A gradual early Maastrichtian large-dinosaur demise would do nicely thank-you. And I think this is supported by recorded lack of remains found in late Maastrichtian stratum.

Paraphrasing The causes of Phanerozoic Extinction -N.Macleod. 'That reworked Cretaceous specimens are present in the lower Tertiary sediments is never a source of dispute'. The mass extinction of multiple species at the bolide event 65Ma ago is also not in dispute.
 * The Cretaceous-Tertiary biotic transition, 1997, N.Macleod: covers the K-T gradual extinction clads, and concludes that a sudden extinction hypothetical is not biotic conclusive. Many Maastrichtian faunal a floral groups declined across the Maastrichtian Age, and the K-T iridium line species extinction's evidential is not an absolute causal, one way or the other. Many dinosaur clad continued to decline into the lower Cenozoic Era with the Avian (bird) clad surviving with us now.Morbas (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

the two periods of the cenozoic era
This is a basic problem with the article. Because all reference to the Tertiary has been purged it is needlessly confusing to those who learned the earlier terms describing this era. gpurcell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.242.201 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It states in the article that the two periods in the cenozoic era were Tertiary and Quaternary.I would like to know which one is older. thanks. ;) ;) ;)

165.24.201.117 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tertiary's older Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  20:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Surely the alternative spellings Kainozoic and Cainozoic imply an alternative pronunciation beginning with a /k/ rather than /s/ sound? Booshank (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Pterre (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no references in the Life section.
There are no references in the Life section. The information in this section should be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbh28 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Uniform use of K-Pg
According to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event page, K-T is an old terminology and K-Pg is the new one. This article uses both and I would suggest to use only K-Pg, as well as "Cretaceous–Paleogene" instead of "Cretaceous–Tertiary".

--Moscoh (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been changed by Dragon guy. Thanks.

--Moscoh (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Cainozoic be merged into Cenozoic. Cainozoic seems to be a duplicate of this page only with less information. Given it's just an alternate spelling I don't think it should have a separate page, but rather a redirect to this page.


 * The two are the same page. Cainozoic is a redirect to Cenozoic. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Unscientific statement
"...leaving Cro Magnons and Homo sapiens as inheritors of the earth." This is rather an unscientific statement. Bacteria and other unicellular life remain the most important by [| biomass]; insects continue to dominate multicelled life by number of species. Is there a less dated, human-centric way to phrase this? Jperrylsu (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I just removed that last bit, not only because of the language, but also it wasn't supported by the cited source and treated cro-magnons as if they weren't homo sapiens. Mikenorton (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cenozoic. 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/20150225011508/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/pliocene.html to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/pliocene.html

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) 12:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Miocene.jpg

Himalayan-caused global cooling has been refuted
The hypothesis that the Himalayan mountains rising led to lower global temps was a long-time hard-to-verify hypothesis that has recently been disproven: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087742

If it remains in the article, it should have some citation of evidence, or at least state that "Some have hypothesized that..." Father-science (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The source is about the Arabian and South China Seas between 16 and 5 million years ago. Far better evidence would be needed to refute a hypothesis about the cause of global cooling over the last 50 million years. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)