Talk:European land mammal age

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology High‑importance Talk:European land mammal age is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

These are the IRC international stages of the geologic timescale, except for the youngest one (where is the Gelasian?), which are only regionally used in Italy (but not in the rest of Europe!). In fact, most of the stages named here are defined on marine fossils, such as plankton, not on mammals. In fact, some of the stages have there golden spikes (Messinian, Ypresian, Danian) or type sections outside of Europe. I have the impression that this article must be either original research, or it does not explain the status of the mammal stages well enough. Woodwalker (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither. It has simply confused ICS stages with ELMA ages. If you want to rebuild it, go ahead; outcomment the the old code with <!-- --> though, we might want to scavenge it for ICS stage (which is what the article lists). For ELMA, I have found this which is brand spanking new and (though low-impact) looks like a good and WP:RS. Be sure to note the last paragraph of the intro; it's basically that the exact correspondence of the MEoc-LEoc / Bartonian-Priabonian boundary is a bit disputed with respect to the Robiacian-Headonian boundary.

If you want to go all the way, start ICS stage article and move scavenged code there. To refine that article, GeoWhen is very useful. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geowhen is at least incorrect as concerned the Quaternary/Neogene boundary.

Btw I have never heard of ELMA, was this acronym invented for Wikipedia? Anyway, the stages are chronostratigraphic units, not mammal stages as one should expect.--Tom Meijer (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the whole content of this page belongs elsewhere. As for ELMA (and for the article in general) start here: doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(97)00079-5 Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref uses the acronym ELMA, so its subject seems to be used in recent research. I think the article stage (stratigraphy) is fine enough for explaining what an ICS stage is (basically just a stage, often from some local stratigraphy, used by the ICS). I will give the revamping of this article some time later. Cheers, Woodwalker (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I wouldn't use geowhen as a source, at least not to that extend. Its information is sometimes incomplete or outdated. The best is to use Ogg et al. (2004), the vast ICS book, who describe most official and unofficial stages and their historical and regional use. Of course this can still be outdated, since there were some major changes made to the ICS timescale since 2004. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph it is stated that These zones form a regional alternative to the stages of the official ICS timescale for most of the Neogene and Paleogene periods (65.5 to 2.588 million years ago). This is incorrect in the first place because both are different types of stratigraphy. Moreover, this is only 'correct' in the case of mammalian fossils (that can be assigned to one of these mammalian stages). For my molluscs these mammalian stages are completely useless, as they are for any other non-mammalian organism. For non-mammalian fossils this is not a standard. Working with molluscs, the molluscan biostratigraphy is the standard! I have changed the sentence but am not quite satisfied with the result. --Tom Meijer (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom, I can see your point and tried to change the text accordingly. Can you please tell me if the current version removes your objection? Woodwalker (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Woodwalker, This is already better. However, I stay with my opinion that stratigraphers who are using the mammalian biostratigraphy, without having any mammalian evidence in the sites they are working, are very bad stratigraphers. They are doing something entirely wrong and sorry to say but they don't understand a bit of stratigraphy. So the sentence "In some cases, stratigraphers and paleontologists can use these biozones as a more practical regional alternative to the stages of the official ICS geologic timescale" may be correct but this applies for bad stratigraphers. A mammalian biostratigraphic unit can only be used with the mammalian evidence present at the studied site(s) that points to that particular mammalian unit. Otherwise it is nonsense. --Tom Meijer (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting off the MN zones into Mammal Neogene zone as per Mammal Paleogene zone? MN is not the same as ELMMZ, and that the article mixes them (and mentions MP only in passing) is really a bit confusing. With both MP and MN out of the way, the article could delve into its actual subject, drawing comparisons with coeval land mammal "ages" elsewhere on Earth. Also, are Villafranchian and Villanyian synonymous (they are nearly coeval)? Dysmorodrepanis (talk)

As for GeoWhen and the Gelasian - true. But it was (is?) a major point of contention, and the source situation is still quite muddled. Even peer-reviewed sources are likely to get it wrong. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dysmorodrepanis: splitting off the Neogene mammal zones is a good idea. I am not an expert but it seems to me that the Neogene and Paleogene mammal biozones (are they only used in Europe?) are some kind of more detailed addition to the ELMMZ's and the whole bunch forms one timescale. If I am right they should shortly be mentioned here too, apart from having their own article. Woodwalker (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]