Talk:Ediacaran: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:43, 20 April 2005

Is it called Ediacaran (-ran) or Ediacarian (-rian) ?

Google has 1590 pages with `ediacaran' vs. only 228 with `ediacarian'. Does anybody know for sure the correct name ?

I suppose it depends on how you think the Ediacara/Ediacaria Hills are spelled. Sort of like Chickamauga vs Chikamauga. Ediacar(i)a is not an English word, so there may be no correct english spelling. Without the "i" seems to be the more common spelling. Note that many references to 'Ediacaria' are probably to a specific fossil genus with that spelling, not to the hills/fauna. I don't have any problem with using the more common spelling -- DJK.

Thanks for this enriching site.--167.7.248.212 13:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Ediacaran name now appears to be "official". -- Mpt 06:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to reflect this, as also described on this page:

http://www.stratigraphy.org/prec.htm

The last National Geographic had a little sidebar about the Ediacaran period being officially expanded. Anyone know about this?

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I suppose it depends on how you think the Ediacara/Ediacaria Hills are spelled.  Sort of like Chickamauga vs Chikamauga.  ''Ediacar(i)a'' is not an English word, so there may be no correct english spelling.  Without the "i" seems to be the more common spelling.  Note that many references to 'Ediacaria' are probably to a specific fossil genus with that spelling, not to the hills/fauna.  I don't have any problem with using the more common spelling -- DJK.
+----Thanks for this enriching site.--[[User:167.7.248.212|167.7.248.212]] 13:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-----
 The Ediacaran name now [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3721481.stm appears to be "official"]. -- [[User:Mpt|Mpt]] 06:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)