Talk:Principle of faunal succession

A Precambrian volcanic layer
There are probably few fossils in a Precambrian volcanic, (maybe a standing tree trunk: No); I think the ones(Standing tree trunks in Volcanics), in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mtns. are much later in time, and I have never seen them, or a picture of them: (Help !)

My note is on my first encounter of a Big geological layer. There is a geological Quadrangle for Prescott, Arizona, and it shows a thin layer of "Precambrian volcnic". It is on the route South, into the Bradshaw Mountains, Arizona, and as one drives by, (a minor, winding, paved road, one can notice, hardly a piece of rock, bigger than 10 in., x(by) 10 in. When I first discovered this nearby layer, and its great age, I realized why there were no large chunks of rock. It was obviously friable, had great age, and its color, a reddish, brownish, even showed its great age.

Thus the great thing about the "law of faunal succession", as with the "law of superposition", is that the relationship of our great world has to be contrasted, in truth, with people who wish the world was 'created', in some other way. .....As Darwin said to Alfred Russel Wallace, in his letters compendium, by the Br. Psychologist, a book of ?1984, " ...this debate will continue, long after we are dead and gone; Great is the Power of Misinformation". He was referring to the Frenchman who was his antithesis in the common "Pulblic Debates" of the 1860 time period. (Antithesis is not exactly the correct word.)  Michael,inHOT,YumaAz--Mmcannis 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

T. rex and Neanderthal?
I replaced reference to Tyrannosaurus with the more appropriate Megalosaurus as T.rex enjoys the distinction of being separated by distance as well as time, which doesn't help to illustrate this article. Megalosaurus was at least a European evolution, sharing a range with Neanderthal that T.rex did not. It is wrong to assume a single transcontinental, hemispheral or global stratum for any given epoch.

The first paragraph appears to determine that fossil records in any given strata sample are differentiated by time rather than distance - a separate description of the fossil record as laid down in different regions during the same epoch would clarify this point.

Describing the law of faunal succession as a prohibition on repeated evolution is misleading, what it establishes is the development of organic complexity over time - either by evolution or by replacement by more complex organisms. Fanx 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Move from "Law" to "Principle"
I think that this article is more appropriate as a "principle", and not a "law". Please comment below before any move is to be made. +mwtoews 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been a unilateral move - done without discussion. Note that not everyone watches the page closely and longer time was needed for discussion to ensue, why be so hasty? I'd reccommend a reversal of the move. Vsmith 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Law of Faunal Succession" was not the creation of wikipedia. It is a law of the species upon Planet Earth. .....And you can pick any name you want to call it. It won't change that it is still the "Law of Faunal Succession". Whatever individuals, or Cabal decided to change it, is mis-guided by whatever reasoning, (And it appears, also by... absolutely no debate or "Discussion"...)...  (A notation from the Ariz-Desert..)--Mmcannis 07:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that was too quick (4 days? I'm not sure what a good time should have been -- 7 days?). However, my reasons were:
 * The original work by William Smith (geologist), which he had termed "The Principle of Faunal Succession"
 * To provide consistency in Wikipedia articles, such as:
 * In the section "Important principles of geology" in the Geology article, which is where the core principles are mentioned
 * Many of the redirects I edited used "principle" rather than "law" (i.e., they were " Principle of faunal succession ")
 * In other discussions of what a law is, versus a principle: from what I've read, they are pretty much the same. Perhaps "laws" are more unifying rules of the universe (often expressed in an alternate mathematical form), where as principles are less rigid? I'm not exactly certain. +mwtoews 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion here (although there is a similar discussion at Talk:Law of superposition). If a "reversal of the move" is still highly advised, then add the template up at the top, but keep in mind why I moved it in the first place. Sorry for the misperception/miscommunication of my initial reason; I wasn't attempting to claim that the Law was flawed. +mwtoews 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of feathers? NOT!
The cited article for the development of feathers is not completely available to me, (nor to most readers, I imagine), but the caption of the picture that WAS available did reveal one important fact: the illustrated evolutionary sequence is hypothetical, not observed. In other words, the cite does not support the statement. Mdotley 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical term still in use?
Apparently the principle of faunal succession was established by William Smith at about 1800. Now, this article takes it for granted, that the principle refers to remains of animals just as much as to plants. So you would expect the existence of another "principle of floral succession", or rather a more general term like "principle of fossil succession", "principle of index fossils", or something. Is there more to explain this inconsistency, or is it just a venerable old tradition? Greets Geoz (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)