Jump to content

Talk:Ediacaran: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Scareth (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:


I have no idea what's happened to the code... my hope is that someone will see this [who is smarter than I] and maybe try to fix it, 'cause I sure know I can't :3 --[[User:Scareth|Scareth]] ([[User talk:Scareth|talk]]) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what's happened to the code... my hope is that someone will see this [who is smarter than I] and maybe try to fix it, 'cause I sure know I can't :3 --[[User:Scareth|Scareth]] ([[User talk:Scareth|talk]]) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Vendian versus Ediacaran ==

I VERY URGENTLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS ARTICLE<br />
M.A. Fedonkin, B.S. Sokolov, M.A. Semikhatov, N.M.Chumakov (2007). "[http://vendian.net76.net/Vendian_vs_Ediacaran.htm Vendian versus Ediacaran: priorities, contents, prospectives.]" In: "The Rise and Fall of the Vendian (Ediacaran) Biota. Origin of the Modern Biosphere. Transactions of the International Conference on the IGCP Project 493, August 20-31, 2007, Moscow." Moscow: GEOS

It was premature to approve the Ediacaran as a new Geological System and Period. Formally the Ediacaran does not fit to any of the stratigraphic categories recommended by the International Stratigraphic Guide in terms of the stratigraphic nomenclature. The Ediacaran has no internal structure of the subordinate unites. Its upper boundary (defined paleoichnologically) is blurred or, rather, uncertain. The identification and correlation of the Ediacaran lower boundary beyond its GCCP can not be realized because of absence of the time-relevant characters in the Nuccaleena cap carbonates. The approval Ediacaran puts the Proterozoic stratigraphy in the state of crisis that directly affects many areas of activity in Earth sciences and applied geology (from the stratigraphy and geological mapping to the paleotectonic and paleogeographic reconstructions).

'''See also:'''
*A. Ragozina, D. Dorjnamjaa, A. Krayushkin, E. Serezhnikova (2008). "[http://vendian.net76.net/Treptichnus_pedum.htm ’’Treptichnus pedum’’ and the Vendian-Cambrian boundary]". 33 Intern. Geol. Congr. August 6- 14, 2008, Oslo, Norway. Abstracts. Section HPF 07 Rise and fall of the Ediacaran (Vendian) biota. P. 183.</ref>
*V. V. Khomentovsky (2008) "[http://www.springerlink.com/content/x46860663q676544/?p=099aefd569db4b9cb2e502a164d90138&pi=0 The Yudomian of Siberia, Vendian and Ediacaran systems of the International stratigraphic scale.]" ''Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation.'' '''16''' (6): 581-598

Revision as of 23:21, 13 March 2009

WikiProject iconGeology B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

In the decades of debate leading up to the formalization of Ediacaran Period, both "Ediacaran" and "Ediacarian" were proposed and used by different authors. In the end "Ediacaran" won and has been official since 2004. --Zamphuor 11:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?


Eep!

I have no idea what's happened to the code... my hope is that someone will see this [who is smarter than I] and maybe try to fix it, 'cause I sure know I can't :3 --Scareth (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendian versus Ediacaran

I VERY URGENTLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS ARTICLE
M.A. Fedonkin, B.S. Sokolov, M.A. Semikhatov, N.M.Chumakov (2007). "Vendian versus Ediacaran: priorities, contents, prospectives." In: "The Rise and Fall of the Vendian (Ediacaran) Biota. Origin of the Modern Biosphere. Transactions of the International Conference on the IGCP Project 493, August 20-31, 2007, Moscow." Moscow: GEOS

It was premature to approve the Ediacaran as a new Geological System and Period. Formally the Ediacaran does not fit to any of the stratigraphic categories recommended by the International Stratigraphic Guide in terms of the stratigraphic nomenclature. The Ediacaran has no internal structure of the subordinate unites. Its upper boundary (defined paleoichnologically) is blurred or, rather, uncertain. The identification and correlation of the Ediacaran lower boundary beyond its GCCP can not be realized because of absence of the time-relevant characters in the Nuccaleena cap carbonates. The approval Ediacaran puts the Proterozoic stratigraphy in the state of crisis that directly affects many areas of activity in Earth sciences and applied geology (from the stratigraphy and geological mapping to the paleotectonic and paleogeographic reconstructions).

See also: