Talk:Rhaetic Beds

which country(ies) is this formation in?
Perhaps that's something someone could add? Trilotat (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I see you too have wandered into the stub geological formation section of wikipedia. Most of these stub articles were created in 2008-2010 and 2014 by mostly using the dinosaur distribution section of the book The Dinosauria. I've spent many months fixing the ones I could find adding key geological information where possible. It's also worth noting here that "Zanclodon" cambriensis isn't even from the alps, but from Wales. From searching I think the term is an informal name for some of the Late Triassic sequences in the UK, and probably deserves to be made into a redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can tell there was a mass stub addition based on that book. I requested it at my local library a couple days ago. When I get it, I'll try to fix or improve what I can from it, too. Cheers. Trilotat (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the information within the book is primarily as a database on where the fossil was found, and it doesn't contain much useful stratigraphic information beyond what is already in the stub. Also since the book was published in 2004, a lot of the stratigraphy is quite outdated. It is best to check either a country's stratigraphic database like BGS or Australian Stratigraphic Units Database or USGS if available; The [Paleobiology Database] is also a great source. It is best if you can use current scientific literature if you can, by looking up the unit on google search or google scholar and then accessing the paper via legal or other means. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the October 1874 letter I used to cite presence in England is even more dated. It's a start, at least. Trilotat (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This article states that the Rhaetic Beds are an old name for the Cotham Member of the Lilstock Formation, so it should definitely be redirected to that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can neither endorse nor dispute the redirect, but that article doesn't cite that statement. I think it bears further research... I'll follow up. Thanks for participating with me on this. Trilotat (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all references to the Rhaetic Beds in the literature are historic (I.e. before 1950) and refer to sections of what is in modern times called the Penarth Group, which is Rhaetian in age and was previously referred to as the Rhaetic see BGS. All references that I've seen suggest that "Zanclodon" cambriensis is from one of the two constituent formations. I think the redirect should go to the more general Penarth Group, which needs an expansion anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen a number of academic sources (online) that also note that relation with the Penarth. Concur with that redirect and the further need to expand on the Penarth. Trilotat (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)