![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What about the extinction that killed the Vendian (precambrian) biota? Should that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurajbo ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
From the K-T extinction blurb: " including the dinosaurs." I personally feel that the evolutionary lineage of birds from dinosaurs is clear, so feel that this should be amended to say "including the non-avian dinosaurs." I realize that this may be contentious for some, so, before doing so, I wanted to hear what the community felt. Baryonyx 04:25, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't notice anyone mention the advent of electricity and the industrial revolution playing very real roles in the acceleroration of such a hypothetical instance as extinction occurring now. As with all else pertaining to the development of society, the advent of electricity and the industrial revolution has hastened the process.... in which ever directions a person chooses to recognize it as having proceded.
I remember having read about a (widely accepted?) theory that the second (or the first) mass extincting was caused by the development of photsynthesis in the evolution of life: The new organism capable of doing photosynthesis thrived and rapidly increases the abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere from only traces before to several tens of percents as now. As oxygen is highly corrosive (remember: there was no oxidation before) most organism died expect for those that developped protection against oxidation in time.
Does anybody know details? Is this correct? If so there should it go? -- sanders_muc
Some people claim that we are living in the middle of another, man-made extinction event right now. However, humanity's effects are trivia compared with the extinction events shown in the fossil record.
Is that a fact? I've seen estimates on damage that are comparable to the smaller or intermediate sized mass extinctions, if nothing like the boundaries that end the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic eras.
Do a search for something like "current mass extinction" in google, and you will find a great number of hits, including articles in Nature and Science. It looks to me like the mass extinction view is closer to a consensus than to a minority of politically motivated views. At the very least there is enough here to remove the sentence from the article, which I'm doing.
So, do we actually have a common unbiased point of view that there is, in fact, another extinction event currently going on? If so, is there a wikipedia entry or other material we could link to? Because I, frankly, remain skeptical and would like to see more scientific evidence (on both sides of the argument). Cema 22:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At present (Dec 2006) the "Holocene extinction" gets more space in this article than the P-Tr and K-T extinctions, which is ridiculous. A lot of the material about the debate and evidence should be moved to Holocene extinction event. My own inclination would be to qualify the "Holocene extinction" in this article as "suggested", because it appears from Holocene extinction event that a different method is being used to assess its severity (attempting to allow for undocumented extinctions) and that this method is likely to produce a higher extinction rate than the traditional fossil-counting method. Philcha 13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Recently, 24.7.97.222 removed this section:
Other scientists view this estimate as exaggerated, however. For example it can be noted that only 9 species of mammals have gone extinct in North America since Columbus' discovery. Of these, 7 are small rodents [1]. Compared to a background global extinction rate of roughly 2 mammal species per millenia, this is quite high, but probably not enough by itself to make dire predictions about. The most species rich environment on Earth are the rainforest, and their destruction could lead to major losses. However, though 12.5% of the amazon rainforest have been cleared, studies suggest that only a far smaller fraction of its diversity has been destroyed. Because animals and plants can frequently be found in many distant locales within the rainforest, it may be possible to preserve most of the rainforest's diversity in an area 1/3 to 1/2 its original size. Hence conservation efforts may be able to save a majority of these species.
and replaced it with:
A survey by the American Museum of Natural History in 1998 found that the vast majority of biologists agreed with Wilson's assessment, and numerous confirmatory studies in the years since then-- led by the IUCN's annual " Red List" of threatened species-- have now produced a scientific concensus on the subject. [2]
Obviously this is a change in perspective for that section of the article and not one I am entirely happy about. I don't doubt that there is a "mass extinction" ongoing in terms of humanity's reorganization of the environment and ensuing loss of diversity. However, from a paleontological perspective, the extinctions we have caused are no where near the scale of any of the major mass extinctions listed in the article. Maybe our impact could reach that level, but in my honest opinion, most of the near-term dire predictions are grossly overblown. In particular, they frequently apply the species-area relation in a context that has never been empirically verified. In doing so, they predict a number of extinctions based solely on the amount of habitat that was destroyed. However, I have never seen a single field study that concluded that the actual impact even approached the level predicted.
Frankly, this article has a problem in that it only talks about the truly major extinction events, which had profound effects even on global disperse and well-adapted taxa. While the Holocene extinctions might well qualify as a man-made event, to date, they simply aren't in the same category as the major mass extinctions. Perhaps we can discuss extinctions as having a gradiation between local/regional extinction events to those of global scale, and also discuss more of the minor/moderate mass extinctions that have occured in the past. In my opinion, the Holocene extinctions are basically minor so far. Whether they can graduate to major is obviously a matter of debate and should be portrayed as such.
Dragons flight 22:52, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
I'm the one ( 24.7.97.222) who made the change you just described. Did you look at the reference link I provided? [3] The issue is not the extinctions that humans have caused so far-- it is the extinctions that are about to take place as a result of the staggering growth in human population and consumption over the past two centuries. It is this impending mass extinction that the world's biologists are warning about. And it certainly does rival the great mass extinctions of the past: the most recent estimate I heard at the California Academy of Sciences two weeks ago was that half of all species will be extinct in 50 years-- i.e., twice as fast as E.O. Wilson's estimate.
New edit: Think of processes, of a graph with the numbers of species going down from 100% to 98% over millennia and then rapidly to about 95% in 2000. Then think of the momentum that such a 'system' posesses - to coast along to 90%, to 80%, to 50%, could be easy - do nothing new. The extinction debate should be about what counter forces can Humans begin to apply now so as not only to equal the forces driving extinctions, but to reverse the trend. Only then will the graph bottom out, and a painful, slow recovery begin.
I've made a small 'change of balance' edit and hope to do more. This first point is to reinstate the 'taxonomy' of the sixth extinction. The person who carefully, and I assume factually, records 1/, 2/ ... 6/ and 7/ mass extinction events, with 7/ being the sixth extinction should be - well the word is close to the tip of my tongue )- That person was being devious. I would be grateful to him for removing this confusion from the Article.
I've also removed a line that implied that someone (or more) had received a science research grant to search for a past total extinction! I hope he was alone when he earned his reward. Stanskis 04:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is "extinction event" really the standard biological terminology here? Anyone know where the phrase originated? -- Ryguasu 22:31 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
Although many life forms may become extinct, this does not necessarily imply that all life ceases to exist…
This seems like an awfully weak statement. If I'm not mistaken, no recorded or even theorized extinction event has ever implied that "all life cease[d] to exist". Sure, it could happen, but even a man-made nuclear winter or other catastrophic climate change would probably leave quite a bit of life, even if it destroyed all of our favorite genera. Surely this could be rephrased more meaningfully. -- Jeff Q 04:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following questionable material. Verneshot is more untested hypothesis or wild speculation than theory. Google search brings up some bizzare sites. Don't think it belongs here.
Vsmith 15:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Eocene Mass Extinction, about 36(?) million years ago. I don't know too many details, but I do know there was a drop in average temperature and a die-off of some mammal groups. Somebody who knows more could fill it in.-- Rob117 03:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Its weak...but you can't do anything about it. Thanks for stopping by. RealityCheck 06:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I have seen various figures for how many years ago each event happened. There seems to be a rough margin of error of about 1 - 3%. And also, some events occured over a few million years, so I think there should be some way to clearly note this on the page. Phaldo December 12, 2005
I agree with Phaldo that there should be a note in the article drawing attention to the margin of error for estimates of when extinction events occurred. In the External links section, The Sixth Extinction by Niles Eldredge (American Institute of Biological Sciences) puts the dates of the five previous mass extinctions at circa 65, 210, 245, 370 and 440 million years ago. The University of Hawaii's College of Natural Sciences says 65, 208, 245, 360 and 438 mya. A History of the Universe timeline on the University of California's website says 67, 205, 251, 370 and 440 mya. I've also seen a variety of alternative names for the most recent geologic periods. I think these discrepancies should be noted and explained. Non-specialist visitors might feel confused if the article seeks to establish one set of event dates and period/epoch names as difinitive when they've already seen alternative dates and names on other websites which they consider authoritative (universities, encyclopedias).
I found this article after a Google search for info on the five major mass extinctions. I was redirected from Wikipedia's superseded "Mass extinction" article. This article addresses Extinction events in general and includes a list of seven events. I feel there should be a specific section on the five major mass extinctions. I'm not well versed on the subject, which is why I resorted to Wikipedia for a quick summary. There are probably many non-scientists and highschool students who arrive at this article for the same reason.
I was trying to find reliable dates for the five major mass extinctions to include in a chart. I've included the current version of the chart, which I donated to Wikipedia. -- Bookish 12:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I just removed Image:MassExtinctionTimeline.png from the article and restored the EasyTimeline version it had replaced. I figured I should elaborate on my reasoning. The EasyTimeline version is much easier to edit, the layout can be customized to different presentation formats (printed versions, for example, or link maps) with arbitrary resolution, and even as it currently stands it's more precice - the image version has a scale marked only at hundred million year intervals whereas the EasyTimeline is set to ten million year intervals. Bryan 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Added detail on recent report of putative P-T linked crater/mascon finding in Wilkes Land, Antarctica.
The following text was inserted by 72.195.144.113 ( talk · contribs). It is not suitable for a scientific discussion of extinction, but it is cogent and might be suitable for some philosophical or metaphysical article, so I am preserving it here in case anyone knows a suitable place for it. Dragons flight 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the set of pages about mass extinctions needs to be restructured, and in particular detailed discussion of particular extinctions should be removed from the general "mass extinction" page:
Topics that should be added to the general "mass extinction page" include:
I also suggest that the "Marine genus diversity" diagram should be reversed - I've seen many presentations with time runing left to right and no other ones with time running right to left, and I think Wikipedia runs the risk of confusing readers if it remains the odd one out. Philcha 07:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Editors input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 17:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen articles that say this had a major-league extinction percentage, and the "marine biodiversity" diagram agrees with this. It might also be important in terms of biodiversity and ecosystems - I'd have to check how many of the Cambrian explosion's "weird wonders" became extinct. Philcha 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: Signor thinks a greater % of genera died out than in the end-Permian catastrophe [9], but the main victims appear to have been the small shelly fauna and the archaeocyathids. Philcha 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This section is in the wrong place within the the article and is as long as all the summaries of past mass extinctions put together. It also looks more like a "talk" item than a contribution to an article, especially the 2 references to Vreugdenhil's blog.
I therefore suggest that the person who added it ([[User:Stevenmitchell | Stevenmitchell) if I've read the history correctly) should move it either to the Holocene extinction event article to to the talk page about that article. That's better than someone else doing it because then the relevant history would show the real author's name. Philcha 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't waste my time again trying to write a serious contribution and then seeing it being completely deleted by knowbetters. I have real work to do to actually try and prevent as much as possible . I thought that it would interest people what the current expectations could be on the basis of a never contested biological curve. I only mentioned a blog because wikipedia asks for references. over and out, Daan Vreugdenhil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Daan Vreugdenhil ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Section "Most widely-supported explanations: Sustained global cooling" says, "The glaciation cycles of the current ice age are believed to have had only a very mild impact on biodiversity ...". I've tried to find citations to support this and the first relevant material I found ( [10]) contradicted it, saying that the long cooling beginning 3.2MYA in the run-up to the glaciations caused marine and terrestrial extinctions all over the world. Can any one supply citations (a) to support what the article currently says; and / or (b) to contradict it, as the one I found does. Philcha 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There's another interesting hypothesis for a 62 million year extinction cycle based on Cosmic Radiation effects when the Sun travels out of the Milky Way plane along the (northern) leading edge of the galaxy's collective motion. [11] It sounds at least somewhat plausible. — RJH ( talk) 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Is upside down. Negative numbers need to be used: I'd fix it myself if I had time...
Someone has inserted extraneous material into the 1st para of this section. I propose to remove the extraneous material, leaving only the 1st and last sentences.
Someone has added a "POV" tag to to the 2nd para, which represents AFAIK the current consesus and whose purpose is simply to provide a well-known example of how extinctions can open the door for evolution. I propose to remove the "POV" tag. Philcha 09:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've now removed the extraneous material and "POV" tag. Philcha 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the article should also give some material or reference to events which could cause complete extinction of all life on earth, say an impact by a large asteroid which would destroy all life on earth including bacteria. The article seems to emphasise 'extinction' more than 'event'. AshLin 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as bacteria live and multiply in rocks several kilometers below the surface, it would take an almost-complete destruction of the planet to remove all life from Earth. Tim Vickers 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the loss of Ediacarian life a mass extinction? 70.51.8.110 ( talk) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The line, "the best-known of these claims is the 26M to 30M year viral cycle in extinctions proposed by Raup and Sepkoski (1986)," made me somewhat suspicious. I hadn't heard of this claim, and yet I'd heard of some of the others. So, I followed the citations to see if it backed up this claim, and there was noting in that paper that made any claims to breadth of familiarity. - Miskaton ( talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says that a burst within 8000 light years of Earth would destroy organisms and the O-Zone layer. While the article on GRB's agrees on the first point, that a burst within 6000 light years would cause a mass extinction, it differs on the latter, in that the burst wouldn't destroy the ozone layer, but rather that it would destroy half of the O-Zone layer, because the other side would be in the 'shadow' of the burst, and basic physics agrees with that, because any GR's that hit the Earth would be stopped by the Earth itself, in the same way that a tennis ball wouls stop the light from a flashlight. Also it would take a birst of at least 10 seconds for it to do that much damage, so its not like a quarter second burst would wipe out the world as we know it. Perhaps a re-wording of the article is needed to make it clear that there would be some O-Zone left and also to make it a little clearer that it would only be a mass extinction, not a total one, which is what I thought it said the first time I read it. 82.21.111.208 ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This could be useful for explaining the difference between "extiction" and "change in diversity". I've asked the image's author if he can turn the image round so that time runs left to right and if he can remove thetext so it can be added via Template:Annotated image -- Philcha ( talk) 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Consider that:
I think it would be useful to have a new graphic that would show all the minor events on a vertical axis (putting the oldest events at the bottom, to match the period-to-period navigation convention). It could have the columns: Mya, Period, Event name/link, Extinction intensity (bar graph). Does that sound like the best approach? -- Beland ( talk) 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that The Big Five be merged into this article.
I implemented the proposed mergers, though some post-merge cleaning up of the target articles may be in order. --
Beland (
talk)
20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We need to sort out how this article lists extinctions:
Since known significant extinctions are likely to increase as paleo knowledge increases, I propose a "List of extinction events" artilce to summarise all known extinctions. I suggest its main content should be a table: date (range); name; impact; notes, which can cover how wide-spread, severity, very brief description with internal link to further details in same article if necessary.
That leaves the question of which event should be mentioned specifically in Extinction event. I suggest:
That list has some implicit criteria - an extinction should be included if it satisfies one of:
-- Philcha ( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
So it's been proposed to create List of extinction events, but we already have Timeline of extinctions. But that only covers historical extinctions on a per-species basis, whereas here we cover both historic and pre-historic extinctions en masse. Should we have Timeline of extinction events with links to "event" articles from a big long table, as proposed above, or something else? -- Beland ( talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the oxygen catastrophe of ~2.7 bya and its associated massive extinctions not included? Vultur ( talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I undid this edit because:
In the section titled "Passage through galactic spiral arms" a value of 700 million years is given for the orbital period of the Sun around the galaxy. There are a number of sources that place this value closer to 200-250 million years. One is the Wikipedia enter titled Milky Way. "It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[37] " Amazedbyitall ( talk) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Are periodic mass extinctions driven by a distant solar companion? Whitmire, D. P.; Jackson, A. A. Nature (ISSN 0028-0836), vol. 308, April 19, 1984, p. 713-715. (Nature Homepage) 04/1984 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Natur.308..713W --aajacksoniv 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv ( talk • contribs)
incorrect reference #52 Error--Page not Found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.109.86 ( talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
the major and minor timescales go in opposite directions. Needs fixing Andrewjlockley ( talk) 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is a major Impact event triggering the the volcainsm ? as both are often associated with a mass extinction ? Photnart 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions:
"But sea-level falls are very probably the result of other events, such as sustained global cooling or the sinking of the mid-ocean ridges."
When one discusses the mid-ocean ridges, the first question that pops into my mind is where is it going?
The way I'm thinking about it is a shift in mass from the ocean seabed to the continents, or processes that would make the continents smaller and taller would tend to cause the sea level to fall. This would include the sequestration of water in the form of ice
Processes that transfer mass from on the continents to the sea such as erosion or melting of ice would tend to make the sea level rise.
So, if a force such as subduction moved mass from under the seabed to depositing the material in with the Cascade Mountain Volcanoes, then that would be equivalent to removing the equivalent amount of mass displaced by the mountains from the ocean.
If, on the other hand, India collides with Asia, the Himalayan mountains are pushed up, and essentially the continental area is decreased and the oceans levels could fall.
Anyway, it seems as if the concept of transferring matter from the ocean to the continents needs clarification.-- Keelec ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if the graph at the top of the page had its X/y axes labeled.
Basesurge ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
The intro overboldly states:
How the heavens can such a precise number be determined?? My questions are: 1. Do we know the current number of species by a precision better than 1:10? 2. Do we know the general life time of a species? 3. Do we actually know the extinction rates of former extinction events, counting all species (f.ex. archaean species)? 4. The sentence, in current form, also implies that a. all precambrian is accounted for, b. extraterrestial species are accounted for. 97% is overly absurd in the context of "species that ever lived". Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help).
Sepkoski's Global Genus Database of Marine Animals. Rohde, R.A. & Muller, R.A. (2005). "Cycles in fossil diversity". Nature. 434: 209–210.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Supplementary Material. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Quote: "With kill rates for species estimated to have been as high as 77% and 96% for the largest extinctions." (Raup, David. M., 1979; Valentine et al., 1978).
"Periodicity of extinctions in the geologic past" (PDF). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 81 (3): 801–805. Feb. 1984. Retrieved 14-04-2010. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help), (Raup, D.M. 12 October 1979. Size of the Permo-Triassic Bottleneck and Its Evolutionary Implications. Science. 206 (4415), 217-218, DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4415.217.) (Quote: "Rarefaction analysis of extinctions in the Late Permian indicates that as many as 96 percent of all marine species may have died out, thus forcing the marine biosphere to pass through a small bottleneck."
[13]), (J. W. Valentine, T. C. Foin, and D. Peart; January 1978; A provincial model of Phanerozoic marine diversity; Paleobiology; 4 (1); p. 55-66.). If I'm right: 4% survivors (96% kill rate) times 23% kill rate and others, equals less than 0.9% survivors (more than 99.1% kill rate) for the marine species, it seems ok for me... If the marine environment is bad, the terrestrial environment must be even worse. My personal opinion: species give a lil bit the wrong picture, genera would be better. Ok
Philcha, I was just trying to prove that a kill rate of more than 97% is ok, although not in this formulation. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
08:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", he mentions that the changes in Earth's magnetic field can also lead to devastation. Such as when the field diminishes while in the process of flipping, cosmic rays would shred living beings' DNA to pieces. Is this a legitimate probability in any of the events? Rgrds. 64.85.221.35 ( talk) 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
While the percentage of total families and total genera wiped out by each of the major five extinction events is given, the comparability falls short on the count of species as well as on dividing genera or species between land and sea. For the Late Devonian and Cretaceous-Tertiary events, the total percentage of species wiped out is given; however, for the Permian-Triassic event the percentages of land and marine species wiped out are given separately. Without knowing what percentage of the total species were marine-based and what percentage were land-based, it is not possible using this information to make an accurate comparison between the scale of the Permian-Triassic event and either of the other two aforementioned events in terms of species wiped out. Furthermore, the Triassic-Jurassic and Ordovician-Silurian events make no mention at all of the percentage of species wiped out, though I can understand if that data is simply not available (particularly for the latter event).
My point here is that tweaking the section to increase consistency in the stats given would be beneficial for people wishing to do a quick comparison of the various events. Granted they can still compare by genera or families; however, this strikes me as a less accurate and perhaps less useful comparison.
Thoughts on the matter? Celtic Minstrel ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is well known that the diversity of life appears to fluctuate during the course of the Phanerozoic, the eon during which hard shells and skeletons left abundant fossils (0–542 million years ago). Here we show, using Sepkoski's compendium of the first and last stratigraphic appearances of 36,380 marine genera, a strong 62 ± 3-million-year cycle, which is particularly evident in the shorter-lived genera. The five great extinctions enumerated by Raup and Sepkoski may be an aspect of this cycle. Because of the high statistical significance we also consider the contributions of environmental factors, and possible causes.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)) --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
05:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "The data itself is taken from Rohde & Muller (2005, Supplementary Material), and are based on the Sepkoski's Compendium of Marine Fossil Animal Genera (2002). Note that these data do not represent all genera that have ever lived, but rather only a selection of marine genera whose qualities are such that they are easily preserved as fossils".
Guessing the definition is signal over base line, a visual graphic rule. Chris I read only the overview, are you suggesting a better defintion is in the full article? Morbas ( talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) and Andrew B. Smith and Alistair J. McGowna (2007).
"The Shape of The Phanerozoic Marine Palaeodiversity Curve: How Much Can be Predicted from the Sedimentary Rock Record of Western Europe?" (PDF). Palaeontology. 50 (Part 4). The Palaeontological Association: 1–10. are cheaper. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Thanks Chris, It appears the analysis is targeting a nominal Galactic z-axis period of 62 Ma. Several big programs have been used to uncover periodicity based on interpretations of biodiverisity and even differential of genera types. I think arguments like this get published for reasons other an accuracy such as technical discipline(s) [not saying that technical discipline was done incorrectly]. You differentiated 'big terrestrial dinos' from 'Mollusca fossils shells', both Cretaceous I presume. Just marveling how ingenious we are at not finding the fundamental zero deviation 417 Ma year embedded the ICS ISC chronology. Morbas ( talk) 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Morbas ( talk) 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Definiton circa: about: used before an approximate date. The geologic dates, while in the past, and certainly changing with geologic methodology, are not circa dates. I think context is way out of scope for this preposition...just use 'Ma-ago'. Morbas ( talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Extinction cycles are linked to two sets end Ordovician, end Permian, end Cretaceous and start Cambrian, end Devonian, end Triassic zones pointing to a 703.8 (+/-3) Myr four arm cycle. The theory includes presumed superchrons (geomagnetic reversals) and arm speed, and indicates a repetition at the mid arm points. Dependence of a meteorite impact pattern with a threshold of 20Km diameter is indicates a pattern extending to 2Ba ago. The coherent pattern indicates a galactic causal mechanism.
[1] Gillman and Erlener, Galactic Cycle of Extinction, International Journal of Astrobiology 7 (1) : 17–26 (2008) Morbas ( talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The ICS delta's (commutating intervals) are derived by an eliptical SOL Galactic Orbit, if the arms and central bar are causal to Periods and PER. The PTr PER point is at apoapsis and the Oligocene and OS is at periapsis. Gilman-Erlener 704M period then is close to 714M, but no cigar (2.5% error)? I wrote to these guys, yet to hear from them tho..IMHO a Havana is deserved...
Morbas ( talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This section is principally a refute of itself ! Logically it is better suited as an inclusion in Most widely supported explanations section. It is not about patterns in frequency, rather presents an opinion that no pattern exits. It needs work, like all the theories it seems to discuss.
To whomever wrote this...please overwright this disussion critique with your objectives and the frame you are striving for.
Comments please ! Morbas ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |}
Reference: [1] Snelling 1985 Chronology of the Geologic Record; Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications. ISBN 0-632-01285-4.
[2] 1991 Kevet, Radan 1991 Complete Periodical Geological Time Table, GeoJournal 24.4 417-420 Kluwer Academic Press.
[3] Rothschild, Adrian 2003, Evolution on Planet Earth, The Impact of the Physical Environment. Academic Press ISBN 0-12-598655-6.
[4] Barrera, Eniqueta, Geology, vol. 22, Issue 10, p.877, Global environmental changes preceding the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: Early-late Maastrichtian transition.(unstable temperature 4 to 7Ma before the KT event).
Morbas ( talk) 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment period begins.... Morbas ( talk) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
References added...and section posted in the main body. Morbas ( talk) 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Period | Terminus Dates | Interval | 6th Interval | ISC (Ma ago) | PER [2] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
-58 Ma ago | |||||
Borgzoic | 57 Ma | (Projected) | |||
-1 Ma ago | |||||
Paleogene_Neogene | 79-7 Ma | 28.4(+/-0.1) | <--Oligocene.Rupelian | ||
72Ma ago | 66(+/-0.3) | ||||
Cretaceous | 75 Ma | ||||
146 Ma ago | 145(+/-4.0) | ||||
Jurassic | 54 Ma | ||||
200 Ma ago | 201.4(+/-0.6) | ||||
Permian_Triassic | 79+7 Ma | 251(+/-0.4) | <--PTr | ||
~286 Ma ago | 298.9(+/-0.8) | ||||
Carboniferous | 73 Ma | ||||
359 Ma ago | (417)Ma | 358.9(+/-2.5) | |||
Devonian | 57 Ma | ||||
416 Ma ago | 417 Ma | 419.2(+/-2.8) | |||
Ordovician_Silurian | 79-7 Ma | 417Ma--> | 443.7(+/-1.5) | <--OSi | |
488 Ma ago | 417 Ma | 485.4(+/-1.7) | |||
Cambrian | 75 Ma | ||||
~563 Ma ago | 417 Ma | ~538.8(+/-1.0) | |||
Varangian.Ediacaran | 54 Ma | ||||
~617 Ma ago | 417 Ma | ~635 | |||
Varangian.Cryogenian |
Legend | |
---|---|
period_period | indicates a group. |
period_period | underscore shows a PER point. |
~period | indicates poorly constrained dates. |
Borgzoic | projection not included in the article.:) |
Reviewer I editied the PER to a underscore and clarify. Morbas ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, whom ever deleted the posting in the main article, please open a discussion below. I will wait 24 hours.... Morbas ( talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to correct Martin Smith's changes, and move those into a separate column. Smith please double check your entries next time. Based on these official dates, the variance of my table is small. You may want to alter your critic accordingly. I will add the Oligocene 28.4Ma and the Ordovician 443.7 for another 417Ma pair this Sunday. The P-Tr, Ordovican-Silurian, and the Oligocene are PER points. Morbas ( talk) 09:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
More due diligence. This is not part of the contention. Oligocene and Ordovician cold periods: "The early part of the Hirnantian was characterized by cold temperatures, major glaciation, and a severe drop in sea level." The Hirnatian was of short duration, lasting about 1.9 million years 445.6 ± 1.5 to 443.7 ± 1.5 Ma (million years ago), characterized by a drop in sea level then return to warmer climate. "The Oligocene climate change was a global [4] increase in ice volume and a 55m decrease in sea level (35.7-33.5Ma) with a closely related (25.5-32.5Ma) temperature depression." These are equivalent events separated by 417Ma. The Hirnantian dating is less constrained, as expected for such a time distant event.
Smith609, Looking at my user talk page Morbas, you will see a replication of the table. You asked earlier for a proof about 417Myr interval. Check the delta column entries and you will see a set of delta numbers that repeat, the law of Commutativity says the sum is invariant to the order they are summed. Morbas ( talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Smith609, I am prepared to insert mypage Morbas into the main section. Morbas ( talk) 14:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
For article in question please see Morbas.
Smith, Funny I didnot see IMHO in your paragraph. My understanding is that number ONE, Wiki has an auto archive system. And TWO a Wiki Bot automatically erases talk sections with no activity for over 30 days. And THREE, IMHO your implied preceptions introduce foreign conflict, the apparent objective to reject the article. Now you imply, that I selected the data to generate the 417Ma differences. Please note, all of the Phanerozoic Period Boundaries were used. Please also note that there are tolerances to these dates, and there are conflicts to whit I have included professional citation. IMHO the arguments you presented were cherry picked sentences within wiki paragraphs, that appear to be out of context to the intent of the rule discussion; and you have a perception issue with the meaning of should and shall. The first is a recommendation, expectation or probability; the second a requirement, determination or obligation. Morbas ( talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you concur, we have a rule to follow; do you concur? Morbas ( talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Smith, given that enlightenment, I contend compliance with wiki policy. Impasse remains.... Morbas ( talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mr Smith, I have worked with you on select improvements you have suggested...and will continue to try to do so. Morbas ( talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A bit more enlightened... The time differences CALC of the ICS periods produce a commutative set having a summation of 417Ma. The commutative set has an alternating +/-3.5Ma time interval at the Oligene, O-S and P-Tr dates. This is a mathematical expression of the (Kepler) Conic Ellipse apsis.
Thus we have a mathematical expression from an associated single datum base, and that qualifies under wiki rules. Human interpolation is excluded from number base association, and cannot be OR. Morbas ( talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Need some help with the templates.
Reference Link Complete Periodical Geological Time Table http://www.springerlink.com/journals/?k=%22Complete+Periodical+Geological+Time+Table%22
Evolution on Planet Earth http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/679292/description#description
Morbas ( talk) 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
1) The current Cretacous-Tertiary event is a random meteorite event. No large dinosaur remains are found at that event point. Meteorites are random, thus dismissable as a pattern causal. The K-T dinosaur linkage is controversial among experts, as shown by Rothschild and others. Being controversial means it cannot be a cherry-picking criteria. 1a) According to NOVA "Arctic Dinosaurs" the big pile of dinosaur fossile is dated at 70Ma-ago in AK. The Dinosaur bone structure indicates a warm blooded taxa, residing in Arctic and Antarctic: counters the Meteorite global cooling causal. The Dinosaurs thrived above the artic circles (4x closer to the poles than the present AK fossil locations). Morbas ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
2) The Carboniferous is covered in the text. The 286 date is circa 1986 dating and resides about mid point at the Karoo Ice age. The ICS dating is taxia biased and not physical, and the circa 1986 is linked to physical strata. If you paruse the web, 286 is used frequently, and this on the Canadian Museum page too. This is a controversial issue and included in the text. FN3 links to ICS variations in the Pre-Cambrian dating, to which the golden table asserts a very small +/-1Ma uncertainty. 3) The Kvet Complete Geologic Time Table is circa 1991 Geo-Journal 24.1 417-420 kluwer Academic Publisher having first publish in 1990 Russia. Until otherwise shown, I respectively assume a scholar peer level review. I have emailed Kvet years ago, no response... Morbas ( talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Morbas ( talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not mention extinction in any of the text. The table has been ammended with the Big-5 and Big-ICE for information only. I make no claims about extinction cycles. Please refrain from that form of piracy.
Again, apsis axis is a mathematical function. I did not introduce Galaxy in any of the text or the table. Stop the Piracy please oh please.... Morbas ( talk) 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Is a referee needed? Are you qualified to review Kvet? 98.148.24.98 ( talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I am signing off...Answer to VSmiths question, if not glactic what? Have a nice night... Morbas ( talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Section has been removed as undue weight and apparent "self-promotion" by the contributor of work promoted, posted or published elsewhere. See: [14], [15] and other websites discussing a Galactic Geologic Interval Theory. Vsmith ( talk) 03:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Section reinstated. This is a discussion still in progress. VSmith has inserted his own ideas (piracy) to justify removal. He removed this after I signed off for the night to expore PER replacement. The Kvet reference appears to be his last hurdle. This is not origianl research, galactic has not been used. Morbas ( talk) 03:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a discussion still in progress.
Geologic Periods are defined by a biostratigraphy process statifying sedimentary rocks, and fossile floral and assemblages. Geologic Periods are a biostratigraphic fossil histogram classificiation. An Eon is a histogram of Periods, where Eons represent the highest biotic type class divisions. Period and Eon boundaries both represent fossil class-type biolevel changes. A histogram of the Eons and Periods outlines a biotic extinction process.
The Physical environment limits the range of biotic processes... Morbas ( talk) 16:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is about finished, per your instructions. Would you like review my page before I paste into the main article. Morbas ( talk) 19:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted a complete paragraph. The difference here is that Kvet is not contrary and has incidental support properties. It is presented in the incidental manner and it's weight is referenced in the foot note section. If this was not clear to you, perhaps you could edit the single sentence in question. Be kind tho and present it separately here so I can maintain my records. And Kvet is published in a Czechoslovak Acadamy of Sciences, Institute of Geopgraphy journal which likely has a peer reviewed submission board. Morbas ( talk) 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(duplicate rfc tag removed) Article in question see Morbas. The 417Ma has meaning only in repetition, arithmetic pattern and CALC. It meets Wiki rules. The Physical meaning is not indicated, but is apparent to the readership. So is an apparent physical linkage (in the readers mind) sufficient for exclusion. Morbas ( talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The rfc tag you removed concerned wiki policy rules, different from the Science Technology at the top....but you were correct to do so....
However, IMHO your objections to this article may require policy redefinition, so I reserve the right to involk such a rfc tag.
Morbas (
talk) 05:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Morbas (
talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Morbas (
talk)
16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I can delete all the above entries. The more bold have my permission...
Morbas (
talk)
18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a name for the extinction event of the last few millenia owing to the dominance of Homo sapiens? ciphergoth ( talk) 11:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the "Continental drift" and "plate tectonics" sections overlap, and could be merged. Comments / suggestions / complaints? bobrayner ( talk) 21:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a forum - come back when you have a WP:RS |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]()
|
Acidifying oceans helped fuel mass extinction; Great die-off 250 million years ago could trace in part to waters' change in pH by Alexandra Witze October 8th, 2011; Vol.180 #8 (p. 10) Science News 99.35.15.199 ( talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed in the summary of the K-Pg Extinction event that it said most nonavian dinosaurs went extinct. As far as I know though-which is admitably not much-all nonavian dinosaurs went extinct at the K-Pg event. Is there some evidence that a nonaavian dinosaur survived a little past the K-Pg event?-- 137.146.143.108 ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Without any supporting evidence for non avian dinosaur fossils dating close to or after the K-Pg boloid event, please change...'The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.' to... 'The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during the Maastrichtian Stage leading up to the K-Pg event.' Morbas ( talk) 23:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The only extinction event that we have observed is the one that is currently happening, yet the cause, while well known and well documented, is not listed. Who is to say that this is not the cause of some earlier events? I am of course referring to the altering of the biosphere by intelligent life. It has caused 100% of observable, documented extinction events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 ( talk) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
" In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died"
This is not reflected in the graphic. None show above or close to 50%.
99.90.71.69 ( talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"Many other hypotheses have been proposed, such as the spread of a new disease, or simple out-competition following an especially successful biological innovation. But all have been rejected, usually for one of the following reasons: they require events or processes for which there is no evidence; they assume mechanisms which are contrary to the available evidence; they are based on other theories which have been rejected or superseded."
Isn't that supposition? Which one would, say, disease fall under? It's not a process with no evidence, it doesn't assume mechanism contrary to the evidence, and it certainly hasn't been rejected/superseded by other theories. -- Stevehim ( talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with the definition of an extinction event in the introduction. Extinction needs to be clearly distinguished from an extinction event. Extinction is the disappearance/death of a species (or larger taxonomic group). (One can make an argument that it also includes sub-populations). Extinction has no correlation with biomass, afaik. The "amount" of life on Earth can be measured in a number of ways, most general would be (imho) metabolic energy conversion, most specific the number of cells or the mass of organisms present. The article does a very bad job of trying to explain why counts of species are used as a measure of the "amount" or "abundance" of life. It has NO business, imho to attempt the redefinition of the word "amount". Number of species is not the "amount of life". Species is not life. An extinction process may involve evolutionary changes, elimination by a competitor, or destruction of a habitat, and of course often includes all three. This article confuses these possibly separate processes. 173.189.75.50 ( talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The article says of the K-T extinction that "In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%" This makes no sense. Does it mean reduced sessile marine species by 33%, or 67%, or does it mean it made sessile animals a smaller percentage of all marine animals than they had been? Anyway it would be good if someone can add an estimate of the effect on marine genera and species as given for the other events. Colin McLarty ( talk) 02:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I see some reference in this Talk page to the latest (6th) Mass Extinction Event, but do not see any response in the article to suggest that it be included in this article.
This is an article on the subject of extinction events, and imho no such article would be complete without at least a mention of this: there is certainly ample evidence and citations regarding the reality of the "Holocene" Extinction, starting around 10,000 BCE to merit it being included in the article. Note too that there is a Wikipedia article on the Holocene Extinction ( /info/en/?search=Holocene_extinction), that should be linked this one. Tony ( talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
68.51.124.248 ( talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe the term "Extinction Level Event [ELE]" is a fictional jargon invented by the 1998 movie Deep Impact. I've never seen it used in anything scholarly, and Google Books turns up no references to it before 1998. Most of the results Google turns up are blogs trying to sound scientific (and one music group), which I'd bet anything were all inspired by the movie.
Graph of usage in books over time:
In the movie, a search for "E.L.E." turns up tons of research—but in the movie, Earth is also hit by a meteor. Neither one is real, and I don't think either one is appropriate to mention as fact in an article on this scientific subject. It's possible that after it was invented by the movie, it entered popular use and is now established enough to warrant mention, but I doubt it. I'm removing it from the lede, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to change it back. — MillingMachine ( talk) 14:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest changing the heading "less extinctions" to "list of extinctions". This would mean incorporating the five big extinctions into the table in their appropriate chronological place. Right now, for a complete list, you have to refer to two totally different sections. It is more helpful to readers to have all of them in the same place. If no one objects, I'll do it myself in a couple weeks or so. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I plan on editing the /info/en/?search=Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events section.
I have a cropped image of the Sepkoski Curve from the Milwaukee Public Museum that I plan on adding. However, for the sake of clarity of comparing the list VRS. the image, it would help if I could reverse the numbering of the list, from 1-2-3-4-5, to instead be 5-4-3-2-1 (aka David Letterman's "Top Ten" list).
Does anyone have advice as to how to do it?
LP-mn ( talk) 05:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Only a few million years before the Great Dying (Permian mass extinction), there appears to have been another major ME: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/23/scientists-discover-new-mass-extinction-rivaling-the-death-of-the-dinosaurs/?wpisrc=nl_mix&wpmm=1 , http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2015/04/sixth-extinction-rivaling-dinosaurs-should-join-big-five-scientists-say . Kdammers ( talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead section describes the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction as the most recent extinction, although the Holocene extinction is still ongoing. Would it be more accurate to describe the Holocene extinction as the most recent extinction event? Jarble ( talk) 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like @
Oiyarbepsy: to justify the content they restored on an item-by-item basis. They added >6,000 to the article, but I don't see anything like that in any of my reverts. I believe they are talking about another user? Note that "because it had nothing to do with the edit summary" is not a sufficient justification...but first I want to be certain they're even referring to the right edit.
Geogene (
talk)
18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
So there's this excerpt right in the abstract: "Some have suggested that anthropogenic extinctions may have begun as early as when the first modern humans spread out of Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, which certainly coincides with megafaunal extinction in Australia, New Zealand and Madagascar".
Can you please explain this relating to New Zealand, which wasn't populated by humans until some hundred years ago? See History of New Zealand and Fauna of New Zealand. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.254.62 ( talk) 10:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying that I don't recognize climate change, but the fact that many scientists say that humans are only a part of the Holocene Extinction Event probably means that there should be more than just humans in the factors section. Gug01 ( talk) 23:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Having read that there is no clarification on the expression "fungal spike" and having found some references on the internet, I decided to put them here, since I do not know how to add to the bibliography / reference section
Not only do I do it because I do not know how to do it, but also because I do not feel comfortable in contributing anymore to Wikipedia with typing of original texts nor edition of pre-existing texts, since I was previously harassed in Portuguese-speaking Wikipedia. It is up to you whether or not to use the references contained in these links:
http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/oberseminar/os03_04/Zamecnik.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.118.149.101 ( talk) 01:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is plagued with this problem in scientific articles. The overall goal of Wikipedia is global encyclopedic information. There is no Wikipedia objective (that I am aware of) which includes scientific abbreviations without definition. This is not an encyclopedia for scientists, alone. This is not an encyclopedia for college students, alone. This is an encyclopedia for everyone. Should it be written for first graders? Naturally the answer to that is no. There must be a line drawn. For example, many states require that automobile insurance policies are legally supposed to be targeted to "no more than" the 9th grade reading level. Think about that for a moment. Anyone who drives a car is supposed to be able to read to a 9th grade level, roughly the same age as the minimum age that drivers licenses begin being issued. Notice that they require this for a targeted group of readers. The one who believes that nearly all readers are above the 9th grade, is badly mistaken. I am a relatively intelligent person. I am a nurse with many years experience. That puts me at college level and I'm even in the science business. That said, I had to look up Ma which is mentioned time and again, but never defined. I have been reading articles all day about meteoric events and as we all do, one click leads to another and and another and another and so here I am. I have seen Ma used in a number of related articles and zero define it. That is very sad not to mention extremely disappointing. While I do not believe that dumbing down is an answer, I do believe that any article should explain what readers are actually reading. Take the magazine Archaeology. Articles published in that magazine never use scientific terms without definition. Linking to a definition at the beginning of the article is also wrong because then the reader has to figure out where a tiny word like "ma" first shows up. For example, using Ctrl+F Chrome finds (today) 370 instances in this article. Readers need to be able to easily find the full word and its meaning on the same page, without having to Ctrl+F the page, then being forced to Google the abbreviation which also does not explain it. Google says (today) that it means Master of Arts, which it does. A search even on Wikipedia (today) has so many instances that picking out the exact meaning is difficult at best, and at its worst, simply impossible. Now perhaps you can see the problem. Yes, I figured it out... finally... but I am unfamiliar with the content here so it would be unwise for me to edit this article as well as others with similar topics. Many thanks for listening. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
1) Life before last universal common ancestor was extinguished by it and its successors as a more efficient form of life and one able to change while retaining new characteristics long enough for them to prevail. 2) The life that helped to create the banded iron formation extinguished life before it with extreme acid/base alternations in the oceans. 3) When evolution eventually found a way out of that cycle of alterations, the life forms that caused it were extinguished. Even though no discrete fossils were found and then not found, extinction can be scientifically established by of other evidence. HugoGB ( talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Extinction event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Although many biology sources state this as a fact, the evidence isn't that strong. Nick Lane put it like this [21]:
"Microbes are not equivalent to large animals: their population sizes are enormously larger, and they pass around useful genes (such as those for antibiotic resistance) by lateral transfer, making them very much less vulnerable to extinction. There is no hint of any microbial extinction even in the aftermath of the Great Oxygenation Event. The 'oxygen holocaust', which supposedly wiped out most anaerobic cells, can't be traced at all; there is no evidence from either phylogenetics or geochemistry that such an extinction ever took place. On the contrary, anaerobes prospered."
I think this should be mentioned. Robert Walker ( talk) 16:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a canonical mass extinction because it's inferred from biology, and not observed in the fossil record. As such it's of no use to paleontologists in dating strata, which was the original purpose of studying the others. Putting it in the same table with the others involves some level of SYN. Geogene ( talk) 22:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
An historical context section is missing. When did the concept of 'mass extinction' or 'extinction event' first appear? By whom was it put forward? What evidence or dicovery brough the idea to the fore? How did it evolve to the modern understanding? Urhixidur ( talk) 02:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the footnotes 59 and 60 don't lead to any citation, where did the number of Flood basalt events and Sea-level falls come from? Someone's original research? Either way, I feel confused by the lines under this header, and I hope someone can clarify it by fixing it up. 2604:3D08:5082:7A00:D0A5:B59E:38DA:CB10 ( talk) 06:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Every few years, someone edits the article to add “-level” to the phrase “Extinction event.” “Extinction-level event” is fictional scientific jargon from the movie Deep Impact. It also inspired the title of a Busta Rhymes album that came out shortly after the movie. Maybe someday it will become a mainstream scientific term—it pops up in a few papers now and then—but it is being added to the article by people who don’t realize that the movie was not describing real scientific terminology. Please stop adding it unless—or until—it becomes a mainstream scientific term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwarmOfAnts ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Should probably add a note explaining why these are not included among major extinctions, cf. explanation here (high percentage of taxa, but absolute # of taxa is low due to paucity of fossil-producing life in Cambrian) -- makes sense but needs a source. -- Middle 8 ( s) talk • privacy
So the text header for the marine extinction graph is not formatted right, with the eon link (can't remember the eon name while writing this, lol) superimposed over the image. I'm on an Android phone using the Chrome app, if that helps. I would fix it myself but don't know enough about the site to not break it further! 12.208.118.66 ( talk) 04:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What about the extinction that killed the Vendian (precambrian) biota? Should that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurajbo ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
From the K-T extinction blurb: " including the dinosaurs." I personally feel that the evolutionary lineage of birds from dinosaurs is clear, so feel that this should be amended to say "including the non-avian dinosaurs." I realize that this may be contentious for some, so, before doing so, I wanted to hear what the community felt. Baryonyx 04:25, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't notice anyone mention the advent of electricity and the industrial revolution playing very real roles in the acceleroration of such a hypothetical instance as extinction occurring now. As with all else pertaining to the development of society, the advent of electricity and the industrial revolution has hastened the process.... in which ever directions a person chooses to recognize it as having proceded.
I remember having read about a (widely accepted?) theory that the second (or the first) mass extincting was caused by the development of photsynthesis in the evolution of life: The new organism capable of doing photosynthesis thrived and rapidly increases the abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere from only traces before to several tens of percents as now. As oxygen is highly corrosive (remember: there was no oxidation before) most organism died expect for those that developped protection against oxidation in time.
Does anybody know details? Is this correct? If so there should it go? -- sanders_muc
Some people claim that we are living in the middle of another, man-made extinction event right now. However, humanity's effects are trivia compared with the extinction events shown in the fossil record.
Is that a fact? I've seen estimates on damage that are comparable to the smaller or intermediate sized mass extinctions, if nothing like the boundaries that end the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic eras.
Do a search for something like "current mass extinction" in google, and you will find a great number of hits, including articles in Nature and Science. It looks to me like the mass extinction view is closer to a consensus than to a minority of politically motivated views. At the very least there is enough here to remove the sentence from the article, which I'm doing.
So, do we actually have a common unbiased point of view that there is, in fact, another extinction event currently going on? If so, is there a wikipedia entry or other material we could link to? Because I, frankly, remain skeptical and would like to see more scientific evidence (on both sides of the argument). Cema 22:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At present (Dec 2006) the "Holocene extinction" gets more space in this article than the P-Tr and K-T extinctions, which is ridiculous. A lot of the material about the debate and evidence should be moved to Holocene extinction event. My own inclination would be to qualify the "Holocene extinction" in this article as "suggested", because it appears from Holocene extinction event that a different method is being used to assess its severity (attempting to allow for undocumented extinctions) and that this method is likely to produce a higher extinction rate than the traditional fossil-counting method. Philcha 13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Recently, 24.7.97.222 removed this section:
Other scientists view this estimate as exaggerated, however. For example it can be noted that only 9 species of mammals have gone extinct in North America since Columbus' discovery. Of these, 7 are small rodents [1]. Compared to a background global extinction rate of roughly 2 mammal species per millenia, this is quite high, but probably not enough by itself to make dire predictions about. The most species rich environment on Earth are the rainforest, and their destruction could lead to major losses. However, though 12.5% of the amazon rainforest have been cleared, studies suggest that only a far smaller fraction of its diversity has been destroyed. Because animals and plants can frequently be found in many distant locales within the rainforest, it may be possible to preserve most of the rainforest's diversity in an area 1/3 to 1/2 its original size. Hence conservation efforts may be able to save a majority of these species.
and replaced it with:
A survey by the American Museum of Natural History in 1998 found that the vast majority of biologists agreed with Wilson's assessment, and numerous confirmatory studies in the years since then-- led by the IUCN's annual " Red List" of threatened species-- have now produced a scientific concensus on the subject. [2]
Obviously this is a change in perspective for that section of the article and not one I am entirely happy about. I don't doubt that there is a "mass extinction" ongoing in terms of humanity's reorganization of the environment and ensuing loss of diversity. However, from a paleontological perspective, the extinctions we have caused are no where near the scale of any of the major mass extinctions listed in the article. Maybe our impact could reach that level, but in my honest opinion, most of the near-term dire predictions are grossly overblown. In particular, they frequently apply the species-area relation in a context that has never been empirically verified. In doing so, they predict a number of extinctions based solely on the amount of habitat that was destroyed. However, I have never seen a single field study that concluded that the actual impact even approached the level predicted.
Frankly, this article has a problem in that it only talks about the truly major extinction events, which had profound effects even on global disperse and well-adapted taxa. While the Holocene extinctions might well qualify as a man-made event, to date, they simply aren't in the same category as the major mass extinctions. Perhaps we can discuss extinctions as having a gradiation between local/regional extinction events to those of global scale, and also discuss more of the minor/moderate mass extinctions that have occured in the past. In my opinion, the Holocene extinctions are basically minor so far. Whether they can graduate to major is obviously a matter of debate and should be portrayed as such.
Dragons flight 22:52, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
I'm the one ( 24.7.97.222) who made the change you just described. Did you look at the reference link I provided? [3] The issue is not the extinctions that humans have caused so far-- it is the extinctions that are about to take place as a result of the staggering growth in human population and consumption over the past two centuries. It is this impending mass extinction that the world's biologists are warning about. And it certainly does rival the great mass extinctions of the past: the most recent estimate I heard at the California Academy of Sciences two weeks ago was that half of all species will be extinct in 50 years-- i.e., twice as fast as E.O. Wilson's estimate.
New edit: Think of processes, of a graph with the numbers of species going down from 100% to 98% over millennia and then rapidly to about 95% in 2000. Then think of the momentum that such a 'system' posesses - to coast along to 90%, to 80%, to 50%, could be easy - do nothing new. The extinction debate should be about what counter forces can Humans begin to apply now so as not only to equal the forces driving extinctions, but to reverse the trend. Only then will the graph bottom out, and a painful, slow recovery begin.
I've made a small 'change of balance' edit and hope to do more. This first point is to reinstate the 'taxonomy' of the sixth extinction. The person who carefully, and I assume factually, records 1/, 2/ ... 6/ and 7/ mass extinction events, with 7/ being the sixth extinction should be - well the word is close to the tip of my tongue )- That person was being devious. I would be grateful to him for removing this confusion from the Article.
I've also removed a line that implied that someone (or more) had received a science research grant to search for a past total extinction! I hope he was alone when he earned his reward. Stanskis 04:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is "extinction event" really the standard biological terminology here? Anyone know where the phrase originated? -- Ryguasu 22:31 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
Although many life forms may become extinct, this does not necessarily imply that all life ceases to exist…
This seems like an awfully weak statement. If I'm not mistaken, no recorded or even theorized extinction event has ever implied that "all life cease[d] to exist". Sure, it could happen, but even a man-made nuclear winter or other catastrophic climate change would probably leave quite a bit of life, even if it destroyed all of our favorite genera. Surely this could be rephrased more meaningfully. -- Jeff Q 04:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following questionable material. Verneshot is more untested hypothesis or wild speculation than theory. Google search brings up some bizzare sites. Don't think it belongs here.
Vsmith 15:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Eocene Mass Extinction, about 36(?) million years ago. I don't know too many details, but I do know there was a drop in average temperature and a die-off of some mammal groups. Somebody who knows more could fill it in.-- Rob117 03:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Its weak...but you can't do anything about it. Thanks for stopping by. RealityCheck 06:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I have seen various figures for how many years ago each event happened. There seems to be a rough margin of error of about 1 - 3%. And also, some events occured over a few million years, so I think there should be some way to clearly note this on the page. Phaldo December 12, 2005
I agree with Phaldo that there should be a note in the article drawing attention to the margin of error for estimates of when extinction events occurred. In the External links section, The Sixth Extinction by Niles Eldredge (American Institute of Biological Sciences) puts the dates of the five previous mass extinctions at circa 65, 210, 245, 370 and 440 million years ago. The University of Hawaii's College of Natural Sciences says 65, 208, 245, 360 and 438 mya. A History of the Universe timeline on the University of California's website says 67, 205, 251, 370 and 440 mya. I've also seen a variety of alternative names for the most recent geologic periods. I think these discrepancies should be noted and explained. Non-specialist visitors might feel confused if the article seeks to establish one set of event dates and period/epoch names as difinitive when they've already seen alternative dates and names on other websites which they consider authoritative (universities, encyclopedias).
I found this article after a Google search for info on the five major mass extinctions. I was redirected from Wikipedia's superseded "Mass extinction" article. This article addresses Extinction events in general and includes a list of seven events. I feel there should be a specific section on the five major mass extinctions. I'm not well versed on the subject, which is why I resorted to Wikipedia for a quick summary. There are probably many non-scientists and highschool students who arrive at this article for the same reason.
I was trying to find reliable dates for the five major mass extinctions to include in a chart. I've included the current version of the chart, which I donated to Wikipedia. -- Bookish 12:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I just removed Image:MassExtinctionTimeline.png from the article and restored the EasyTimeline version it had replaced. I figured I should elaborate on my reasoning. The EasyTimeline version is much easier to edit, the layout can be customized to different presentation formats (printed versions, for example, or link maps) with arbitrary resolution, and even as it currently stands it's more precice - the image version has a scale marked only at hundred million year intervals whereas the EasyTimeline is set to ten million year intervals. Bryan 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Added detail on recent report of putative P-T linked crater/mascon finding in Wilkes Land, Antarctica.
The following text was inserted by 72.195.144.113 ( talk · contribs). It is not suitable for a scientific discussion of extinction, but it is cogent and might be suitable for some philosophical or metaphysical article, so I am preserving it here in case anyone knows a suitable place for it. Dragons flight 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the set of pages about mass extinctions needs to be restructured, and in particular detailed discussion of particular extinctions should be removed from the general "mass extinction" page:
Topics that should be added to the general "mass extinction page" include:
I also suggest that the "Marine genus diversity" diagram should be reversed - I've seen many presentations with time runing left to right and no other ones with time running right to left, and I think Wikipedia runs the risk of confusing readers if it remains the odd one out. Philcha 07:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Editors input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 17:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen articles that say this had a major-league extinction percentage, and the "marine biodiversity" diagram agrees with this. It might also be important in terms of biodiversity and ecosystems - I'd have to check how many of the Cambrian explosion's "weird wonders" became extinct. Philcha 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: Signor thinks a greater % of genera died out than in the end-Permian catastrophe [9], but the main victims appear to have been the small shelly fauna and the archaeocyathids. Philcha 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This section is in the wrong place within the the article and is as long as all the summaries of past mass extinctions put together. It also looks more like a "talk" item than a contribution to an article, especially the 2 references to Vreugdenhil's blog.
I therefore suggest that the person who added it ([[User:Stevenmitchell | Stevenmitchell) if I've read the history correctly) should move it either to the Holocene extinction event article to to the talk page about that article. That's better than someone else doing it because then the relevant history would show the real author's name. Philcha 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't waste my time again trying to write a serious contribution and then seeing it being completely deleted by knowbetters. I have real work to do to actually try and prevent as much as possible . I thought that it would interest people what the current expectations could be on the basis of a never contested biological curve. I only mentioned a blog because wikipedia asks for references. over and out, Daan Vreugdenhil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Daan Vreugdenhil ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Section "Most widely-supported explanations: Sustained global cooling" says, "The glaciation cycles of the current ice age are believed to have had only a very mild impact on biodiversity ...". I've tried to find citations to support this and the first relevant material I found ( [10]) contradicted it, saying that the long cooling beginning 3.2MYA in the run-up to the glaciations caused marine and terrestrial extinctions all over the world. Can any one supply citations (a) to support what the article currently says; and / or (b) to contradict it, as the one I found does. Philcha 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There's another interesting hypothesis for a 62 million year extinction cycle based on Cosmic Radiation effects when the Sun travels out of the Milky Way plane along the (northern) leading edge of the galaxy's collective motion. [11] It sounds at least somewhat plausible. — RJH ( talk) 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Is upside down. Negative numbers need to be used: I'd fix it myself if I had time...
Someone has inserted extraneous material into the 1st para of this section. I propose to remove the extraneous material, leaving only the 1st and last sentences.
Someone has added a "POV" tag to to the 2nd para, which represents AFAIK the current consesus and whose purpose is simply to provide a well-known example of how extinctions can open the door for evolution. I propose to remove the "POV" tag. Philcha 09:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've now removed the extraneous material and "POV" tag. Philcha 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the article should also give some material or reference to events which could cause complete extinction of all life on earth, say an impact by a large asteroid which would destroy all life on earth including bacteria. The article seems to emphasise 'extinction' more than 'event'. AshLin 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as bacteria live and multiply in rocks several kilometers below the surface, it would take an almost-complete destruction of the planet to remove all life from Earth. Tim Vickers 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the loss of Ediacarian life a mass extinction? 70.51.8.110 ( talk) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The line, "the best-known of these claims is the 26M to 30M year viral cycle in extinctions proposed by Raup and Sepkoski (1986)," made me somewhat suspicious. I hadn't heard of this claim, and yet I'd heard of some of the others. So, I followed the citations to see if it backed up this claim, and there was noting in that paper that made any claims to breadth of familiarity. - Miskaton ( talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says that a burst within 8000 light years of Earth would destroy organisms and the O-Zone layer. While the article on GRB's agrees on the first point, that a burst within 6000 light years would cause a mass extinction, it differs on the latter, in that the burst wouldn't destroy the ozone layer, but rather that it would destroy half of the O-Zone layer, because the other side would be in the 'shadow' of the burst, and basic physics agrees with that, because any GR's that hit the Earth would be stopped by the Earth itself, in the same way that a tennis ball wouls stop the light from a flashlight. Also it would take a birst of at least 10 seconds for it to do that much damage, so its not like a quarter second burst would wipe out the world as we know it. Perhaps a re-wording of the article is needed to make it clear that there would be some O-Zone left and also to make it a little clearer that it would only be a mass extinction, not a total one, which is what I thought it said the first time I read it. 82.21.111.208 ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This could be useful for explaining the difference between "extiction" and "change in diversity". I've asked the image's author if he can turn the image round so that time runs left to right and if he can remove thetext so it can be added via Template:Annotated image -- Philcha ( talk) 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Consider that:
I think it would be useful to have a new graphic that would show all the minor events on a vertical axis (putting the oldest events at the bottom, to match the period-to-period navigation convention). It could have the columns: Mya, Period, Event name/link, Extinction intensity (bar graph). Does that sound like the best approach? -- Beland ( talk) 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that The Big Five be merged into this article.
I implemented the proposed mergers, though some post-merge cleaning up of the target articles may be in order. --
Beland (
talk)
20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We need to sort out how this article lists extinctions:
Since known significant extinctions are likely to increase as paleo knowledge increases, I propose a "List of extinction events" artilce to summarise all known extinctions. I suggest its main content should be a table: date (range); name; impact; notes, which can cover how wide-spread, severity, very brief description with internal link to further details in same article if necessary.
That leaves the question of which event should be mentioned specifically in Extinction event. I suggest:
That list has some implicit criteria - an extinction should be included if it satisfies one of:
-- Philcha ( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
So it's been proposed to create List of extinction events, but we already have Timeline of extinctions. But that only covers historical extinctions on a per-species basis, whereas here we cover both historic and pre-historic extinctions en masse. Should we have Timeline of extinction events with links to "event" articles from a big long table, as proposed above, or something else? -- Beland ( talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the oxygen catastrophe of ~2.7 bya and its associated massive extinctions not included? Vultur ( talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I undid this edit because:
In the section titled "Passage through galactic spiral arms" a value of 700 million years is given for the orbital period of the Sun around the galaxy. There are a number of sources that place this value closer to 200-250 million years. One is the Wikipedia enter titled Milky Way. "It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[37] " Amazedbyitall ( talk) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Are periodic mass extinctions driven by a distant solar companion? Whitmire, D. P.; Jackson, A. A. Nature (ISSN 0028-0836), vol. 308, April 19, 1984, p. 713-715. (Nature Homepage) 04/1984 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Natur.308..713W --aajacksoniv 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv ( talk • contribs)
incorrect reference #52 Error--Page not Found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.109.86 ( talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
the major and minor timescales go in opposite directions. Needs fixing Andrewjlockley ( talk) 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is a major Impact event triggering the the volcainsm ? as both are often associated with a mass extinction ? Photnart 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions:
"But sea-level falls are very probably the result of other events, such as sustained global cooling or the sinking of the mid-ocean ridges."
When one discusses the mid-ocean ridges, the first question that pops into my mind is where is it going?
The way I'm thinking about it is a shift in mass from the ocean seabed to the continents, or processes that would make the continents smaller and taller would tend to cause the sea level to fall. This would include the sequestration of water in the form of ice
Processes that transfer mass from on the continents to the sea such as erosion or melting of ice would tend to make the sea level rise.
So, if a force such as subduction moved mass from under the seabed to depositing the material in with the Cascade Mountain Volcanoes, then that would be equivalent to removing the equivalent amount of mass displaced by the mountains from the ocean.
If, on the other hand, India collides with Asia, the Himalayan mountains are pushed up, and essentially the continental area is decreased and the oceans levels could fall.
Anyway, it seems as if the concept of transferring matter from the ocean to the continents needs clarification.-- Keelec ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if the graph at the top of the page had its X/y axes labeled.
Basesurge ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
The intro overboldly states:
How the heavens can such a precise number be determined?? My questions are: 1. Do we know the current number of species by a precision better than 1:10? 2. Do we know the general life time of a species? 3. Do we actually know the extinction rates of former extinction events, counting all species (f.ex. archaean species)? 4. The sentence, in current form, also implies that a. all precambrian is accounted for, b. extraterrestial species are accounted for. 97% is overly absurd in the context of "species that ever lived". Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help).
Sepkoski's Global Genus Database of Marine Animals. Rohde, R.A. & Muller, R.A. (2005). "Cycles in fossil diversity". Nature. 434: 209–210.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Supplementary Material. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Quote: "With kill rates for species estimated to have been as high as 77% and 96% for the largest extinctions." (Raup, David. M., 1979; Valentine et al., 1978).
"Periodicity of extinctions in the geologic past" (PDF). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 81 (3): 801–805. Feb. 1984. Retrieved 14-04-2010. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help), (Raup, D.M. 12 October 1979. Size of the Permo-Triassic Bottleneck and Its Evolutionary Implications. Science. 206 (4415), 217-218, DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4415.217.) (Quote: "Rarefaction analysis of extinctions in the Late Permian indicates that as many as 96 percent of all marine species may have died out, thus forcing the marine biosphere to pass through a small bottleneck."
[13]), (J. W. Valentine, T. C. Foin, and D. Peart; January 1978; A provincial model of Phanerozoic marine diversity; Paleobiology; 4 (1); p. 55-66.). If I'm right: 4% survivors (96% kill rate) times 23% kill rate and others, equals less than 0.9% survivors (more than 99.1% kill rate) for the marine species, it seems ok for me... If the marine environment is bad, the terrestrial environment must be even worse. My personal opinion: species give a lil bit the wrong picture, genera would be better. Ok
Philcha, I was just trying to prove that a kill rate of more than 97% is ok, although not in this formulation. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
08:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", he mentions that the changes in Earth's magnetic field can also lead to devastation. Such as when the field diminishes while in the process of flipping, cosmic rays would shred living beings' DNA to pieces. Is this a legitimate probability in any of the events? Rgrds. 64.85.221.35 ( talk) 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
While the percentage of total families and total genera wiped out by each of the major five extinction events is given, the comparability falls short on the count of species as well as on dividing genera or species between land and sea. For the Late Devonian and Cretaceous-Tertiary events, the total percentage of species wiped out is given; however, for the Permian-Triassic event the percentages of land and marine species wiped out are given separately. Without knowing what percentage of the total species were marine-based and what percentage were land-based, it is not possible using this information to make an accurate comparison between the scale of the Permian-Triassic event and either of the other two aforementioned events in terms of species wiped out. Furthermore, the Triassic-Jurassic and Ordovician-Silurian events make no mention at all of the percentage of species wiped out, though I can understand if that data is simply not available (particularly for the latter event).
My point here is that tweaking the section to increase consistency in the stats given would be beneficial for people wishing to do a quick comparison of the various events. Granted they can still compare by genera or families; however, this strikes me as a less accurate and perhaps less useful comparison.
Thoughts on the matter? Celtic Minstrel ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is well known that the diversity of life appears to fluctuate during the course of the Phanerozoic, the eon during which hard shells and skeletons left abundant fossils (0–542 million years ago). Here we show, using Sepkoski's compendium of the first and last stratigraphic appearances of 36,380 marine genera, a strong 62 ± 3-million-year cycle, which is particularly evident in the shorter-lived genera. The five great extinctions enumerated by Raup and Sepkoski may be an aspect of this cycle. Because of the high statistical significance we also consider the contributions of environmental factors, and possible causes.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)) --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
05:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "The data itself is taken from Rohde & Muller (2005, Supplementary Material), and are based on the Sepkoski's Compendium of Marine Fossil Animal Genera (2002). Note that these data do not represent all genera that have ever lived, but rather only a selection of marine genera whose qualities are such that they are easily preserved as fossils".
Guessing the definition is signal over base line, a visual graphic rule. Chris I read only the overview, are you suggesting a better defintion is in the full article? Morbas ( talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) and Andrew B. Smith and Alistair J. McGowna (2007).
"The Shape of The Phanerozoic Marine Palaeodiversity Curve: How Much Can be Predicted from the Sedimentary Rock Record of Western Europe?" (PDF). Palaeontology. 50 (Part 4). The Palaeontological Association: 1–10. are cheaper. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Thanks Chris, It appears the analysis is targeting a nominal Galactic z-axis period of 62 Ma. Several big programs have been used to uncover periodicity based on interpretations of biodiverisity and even differential of genera types. I think arguments like this get published for reasons other an accuracy such as technical discipline(s) [not saying that technical discipline was done incorrectly]. You differentiated 'big terrestrial dinos' from 'Mollusca fossils shells', both Cretaceous I presume. Just marveling how ingenious we are at not finding the fundamental zero deviation 417 Ma year embedded the ICS ISC chronology. Morbas ( talk) 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Morbas ( talk) 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Definiton circa: about: used before an approximate date. The geologic dates, while in the past, and certainly changing with geologic methodology, are not circa dates. I think context is way out of scope for this preposition...just use 'Ma-ago'. Morbas ( talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Extinction cycles are linked to two sets end Ordovician, end Permian, end Cretaceous and start Cambrian, end Devonian, end Triassic zones pointing to a 703.8 (+/-3) Myr four arm cycle. The theory includes presumed superchrons (geomagnetic reversals) and arm speed, and indicates a repetition at the mid arm points. Dependence of a meteorite impact pattern with a threshold of 20Km diameter is indicates a pattern extending to 2Ba ago. The coherent pattern indicates a galactic causal mechanism.
[1] Gillman and Erlener, Galactic Cycle of Extinction, International Journal of Astrobiology 7 (1) : 17–26 (2008) Morbas ( talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The ICS delta's (commutating intervals) are derived by an eliptical SOL Galactic Orbit, if the arms and central bar are causal to Periods and PER. The PTr PER point is at apoapsis and the Oligocene and OS is at periapsis. Gilman-Erlener 704M period then is close to 714M, but no cigar (2.5% error)? I wrote to these guys, yet to hear from them tho..IMHO a Havana is deserved...
Morbas ( talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This section is principally a refute of itself ! Logically it is better suited as an inclusion in Most widely supported explanations section. It is not about patterns in frequency, rather presents an opinion that no pattern exits. It needs work, like all the theories it seems to discuss.
To whomever wrote this...please overwright this disussion critique with your objectives and the frame you are striving for.
Comments please ! Morbas ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |}
Reference: [1] Snelling 1985 Chronology of the Geologic Record; Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications. ISBN 0-632-01285-4.
[2] 1991 Kevet, Radan 1991 Complete Periodical Geological Time Table, GeoJournal 24.4 417-420 Kluwer Academic Press.
[3] Rothschild, Adrian 2003, Evolution on Planet Earth, The Impact of the Physical Environment. Academic Press ISBN 0-12-598655-6.
[4] Barrera, Eniqueta, Geology, vol. 22, Issue 10, p.877, Global environmental changes preceding the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: Early-late Maastrichtian transition.(unstable temperature 4 to 7Ma before the KT event).
Morbas ( talk) 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment period begins.... Morbas ( talk) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
References added...and section posted in the main body. Morbas ( talk) 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Period | Terminus Dates | Interval | 6th Interval | ISC (Ma ago) | PER [2] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
-58 Ma ago | |||||
Borgzoic | 57 Ma | (Projected) | |||
-1 Ma ago | |||||
Paleogene_Neogene | 79-7 Ma | 28.4(+/-0.1) | <--Oligocene.Rupelian | ||
72Ma ago | 66(+/-0.3) | ||||
Cretaceous | 75 Ma | ||||
146 Ma ago | 145(+/-4.0) | ||||
Jurassic | 54 Ma | ||||
200 Ma ago | 201.4(+/-0.6) | ||||
Permian_Triassic | 79+7 Ma | 251(+/-0.4) | <--PTr | ||
~286 Ma ago | 298.9(+/-0.8) | ||||
Carboniferous | 73 Ma | ||||
359 Ma ago | (417)Ma | 358.9(+/-2.5) | |||
Devonian | 57 Ma | ||||
416 Ma ago | 417 Ma | 419.2(+/-2.8) | |||
Ordovician_Silurian | 79-7 Ma | 417Ma--> | 443.7(+/-1.5) | <--OSi | |
488 Ma ago | 417 Ma | 485.4(+/-1.7) | |||
Cambrian | 75 Ma | ||||
~563 Ma ago | 417 Ma | ~538.8(+/-1.0) | |||
Varangian.Ediacaran | 54 Ma | ||||
~617 Ma ago | 417 Ma | ~635 | |||
Varangian.Cryogenian |
Legend | |
---|---|
period_period | indicates a group. |
period_period | underscore shows a PER point. |
~period | indicates poorly constrained dates. |
Borgzoic | projection not included in the article.:) |
Reviewer I editied the PER to a underscore and clarify. Morbas ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, whom ever deleted the posting in the main article, please open a discussion below. I will wait 24 hours.... Morbas ( talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to correct Martin Smith's changes, and move those into a separate column. Smith please double check your entries next time. Based on these official dates, the variance of my table is small. You may want to alter your critic accordingly. I will add the Oligocene 28.4Ma and the Ordovician 443.7 for another 417Ma pair this Sunday. The P-Tr, Ordovican-Silurian, and the Oligocene are PER points. Morbas ( talk) 09:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
More due diligence. This is not part of the contention. Oligocene and Ordovician cold periods: "The early part of the Hirnantian was characterized by cold temperatures, major glaciation, and a severe drop in sea level." The Hirnatian was of short duration, lasting about 1.9 million years 445.6 ± 1.5 to 443.7 ± 1.5 Ma (million years ago), characterized by a drop in sea level then return to warmer climate. "The Oligocene climate change was a global [4] increase in ice volume and a 55m decrease in sea level (35.7-33.5Ma) with a closely related (25.5-32.5Ma) temperature depression." These are equivalent events separated by 417Ma. The Hirnantian dating is less constrained, as expected for such a time distant event.
Smith609, Looking at my user talk page Morbas, you will see a replication of the table. You asked earlier for a proof about 417Myr interval. Check the delta column entries and you will see a set of delta numbers that repeat, the law of Commutativity says the sum is invariant to the order they are summed. Morbas ( talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Smith609, I am prepared to insert mypage Morbas into the main section. Morbas ( talk) 14:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
For article in question please see Morbas.
Smith, Funny I didnot see IMHO in your paragraph. My understanding is that number ONE, Wiki has an auto archive system. And TWO a Wiki Bot automatically erases talk sections with no activity for over 30 days. And THREE, IMHO your implied preceptions introduce foreign conflict, the apparent objective to reject the article. Now you imply, that I selected the data to generate the 417Ma differences. Please note, all of the Phanerozoic Period Boundaries were used. Please also note that there are tolerances to these dates, and there are conflicts to whit I have included professional citation. IMHO the arguments you presented were cherry picked sentences within wiki paragraphs, that appear to be out of context to the intent of the rule discussion; and you have a perception issue with the meaning of should and shall. The first is a recommendation, expectation or probability; the second a requirement, determination or obligation. Morbas ( talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you concur, we have a rule to follow; do you concur? Morbas ( talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Smith, given that enlightenment, I contend compliance with wiki policy. Impasse remains.... Morbas ( talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mr Smith, I have worked with you on select improvements you have suggested...and will continue to try to do so. Morbas ( talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A bit more enlightened... The time differences CALC of the ICS periods produce a commutative set having a summation of 417Ma. The commutative set has an alternating +/-3.5Ma time interval at the Oligene, O-S and P-Tr dates. This is a mathematical expression of the (Kepler) Conic Ellipse apsis.
Thus we have a mathematical expression from an associated single datum base, and that qualifies under wiki rules. Human interpolation is excluded from number base association, and cannot be OR. Morbas ( talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Need some help with the templates.
Reference Link Complete Periodical Geological Time Table http://www.springerlink.com/journals/?k=%22Complete+Periodical+Geological+Time+Table%22
Evolution on Planet Earth http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/679292/description#description
Morbas ( talk) 03:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
1) The current Cretacous-Tertiary event is a random meteorite event. No large dinosaur remains are found at that event point. Meteorites are random, thus dismissable as a pattern causal. The K-T dinosaur linkage is controversial among experts, as shown by Rothschild and others. Being controversial means it cannot be a cherry-picking criteria. 1a) According to NOVA "Arctic Dinosaurs" the big pile of dinosaur fossile is dated at 70Ma-ago in AK. The Dinosaur bone structure indicates a warm blooded taxa, residing in Arctic and Antarctic: counters the Meteorite global cooling causal. The Dinosaurs thrived above the artic circles (4x closer to the poles than the present AK fossil locations). Morbas ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
2) The Carboniferous is covered in the text. The 286 date is circa 1986 dating and resides about mid point at the Karoo Ice age. The ICS dating is taxia biased and not physical, and the circa 1986 is linked to physical strata. If you paruse the web, 286 is used frequently, and this on the Canadian Museum page too. This is a controversial issue and included in the text. FN3 links to ICS variations in the Pre-Cambrian dating, to which the golden table asserts a very small +/-1Ma uncertainty. 3) The Kvet Complete Geologic Time Table is circa 1991 Geo-Journal 24.1 417-420 kluwer Academic Publisher having first publish in 1990 Russia. Until otherwise shown, I respectively assume a scholar peer level review. I have emailed Kvet years ago, no response... Morbas ( talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Morbas ( talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not mention extinction in any of the text. The table has been ammended with the Big-5 and Big-ICE for information only. I make no claims about extinction cycles. Please refrain from that form of piracy.
Again, apsis axis is a mathematical function. I did not introduce Galaxy in any of the text or the table. Stop the Piracy please oh please.... Morbas ( talk) 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Is a referee needed? Are you qualified to review Kvet? 98.148.24.98 ( talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I am signing off...Answer to VSmiths question, if not glactic what? Have a nice night... Morbas ( talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Section has been removed as undue weight and apparent "self-promotion" by the contributor of work promoted, posted or published elsewhere. See: [14], [15] and other websites discussing a Galactic Geologic Interval Theory. Vsmith ( talk) 03:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Section reinstated. This is a discussion still in progress. VSmith has inserted his own ideas (piracy) to justify removal. He removed this after I signed off for the night to expore PER replacement. The Kvet reference appears to be his last hurdle. This is not origianl research, galactic has not been used. Morbas ( talk) 03:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a discussion still in progress.
Geologic Periods are defined by a biostratigraphy process statifying sedimentary rocks, and fossile floral and assemblages. Geologic Periods are a biostratigraphic fossil histogram classificiation. An Eon is a histogram of Periods, where Eons represent the highest biotic type class divisions. Period and Eon boundaries both represent fossil class-type biolevel changes. A histogram of the Eons and Periods outlines a biotic extinction process.
The Physical environment limits the range of biotic processes... Morbas ( talk) 16:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is about finished, per your instructions. Would you like review my page before I paste into the main article. Morbas ( talk) 19:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted a complete paragraph. The difference here is that Kvet is not contrary and has incidental support properties. It is presented in the incidental manner and it's weight is referenced in the foot note section. If this was not clear to you, perhaps you could edit the single sentence in question. Be kind tho and present it separately here so I can maintain my records. And Kvet is published in a Czechoslovak Acadamy of Sciences, Institute of Geopgraphy journal which likely has a peer reviewed submission board. Morbas ( talk) 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(duplicate rfc tag removed) Article in question see Morbas. The 417Ma has meaning only in repetition, arithmetic pattern and CALC. It meets Wiki rules. The Physical meaning is not indicated, but is apparent to the readership. So is an apparent physical linkage (in the readers mind) sufficient for exclusion. Morbas ( talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The rfc tag you removed concerned wiki policy rules, different from the Science Technology at the top....but you were correct to do so....
However, IMHO your objections to this article may require policy redefinition, so I reserve the right to involk such a rfc tag.
Morbas (
talk) 05:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Morbas (
talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Morbas (
talk)
16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I can delete all the above entries. The more bold have my permission...
Morbas (
talk)
18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a name for the extinction event of the last few millenia owing to the dominance of Homo sapiens? ciphergoth ( talk) 11:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Morbas ( talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the "Continental drift" and "plate tectonics" sections overlap, and could be merged. Comments / suggestions / complaints? bobrayner ( talk) 21:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a forum - come back when you have a WP:RS |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]()
|
Acidifying oceans helped fuel mass extinction; Great die-off 250 million years ago could trace in part to waters' change in pH by Alexandra Witze October 8th, 2011; Vol.180 #8 (p. 10) Science News 99.35.15.199 ( talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed in the summary of the K-Pg Extinction event that it said most nonavian dinosaurs went extinct. As far as I know though-which is admitably not much-all nonavian dinosaurs went extinct at the K-Pg event. Is there some evidence that a nonaavian dinosaur survived a little past the K-Pg event?-- 137.146.143.108 ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Without any supporting evidence for non avian dinosaur fossils dating close to or after the K-Pg boloid event, please change...'The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.' to... 'The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during the Maastrichtian Stage leading up to the K-Pg event.' Morbas ( talk) 23:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The only extinction event that we have observed is the one that is currently happening, yet the cause, while well known and well documented, is not listed. Who is to say that this is not the cause of some earlier events? I am of course referring to the altering of the biosphere by intelligent life. It has caused 100% of observable, documented extinction events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 ( talk) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
" In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died"
This is not reflected in the graphic. None show above or close to 50%.
99.90.71.69 ( talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"Many other hypotheses have been proposed, such as the spread of a new disease, or simple out-competition following an especially successful biological innovation. But all have been rejected, usually for one of the following reasons: they require events or processes for which there is no evidence; they assume mechanisms which are contrary to the available evidence; they are based on other theories which have been rejected or superseded."
Isn't that supposition? Which one would, say, disease fall under? It's not a process with no evidence, it doesn't assume mechanism contrary to the evidence, and it certainly hasn't been rejected/superseded by other theories. -- Stevehim ( talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with the definition of an extinction event in the introduction. Extinction needs to be clearly distinguished from an extinction event. Extinction is the disappearance/death of a species (or larger taxonomic group). (One can make an argument that it also includes sub-populations). Extinction has no correlation with biomass, afaik. The "amount" of life on Earth can be measured in a number of ways, most general would be (imho) metabolic energy conversion, most specific the number of cells or the mass of organisms present. The article does a very bad job of trying to explain why counts of species are used as a measure of the "amount" or "abundance" of life. It has NO business, imho to attempt the redefinition of the word "amount". Number of species is not the "amount of life". Species is not life. An extinction process may involve evolutionary changes, elimination by a competitor, or destruction of a habitat, and of course often includes all three. This article confuses these possibly separate processes. 173.189.75.50 ( talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The article says of the K-T extinction that "In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%" This makes no sense. Does it mean reduced sessile marine species by 33%, or 67%, or does it mean it made sessile animals a smaller percentage of all marine animals than they had been? Anyway it would be good if someone can add an estimate of the effect on marine genera and species as given for the other events. Colin McLarty ( talk) 02:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I see some reference in this Talk page to the latest (6th) Mass Extinction Event, but do not see any response in the article to suggest that it be included in this article.
This is an article on the subject of extinction events, and imho no such article would be complete without at least a mention of this: there is certainly ample evidence and citations regarding the reality of the "Holocene" Extinction, starting around 10,000 BCE to merit it being included in the article. Note too that there is a Wikipedia article on the Holocene Extinction ( /info/en/?search=Holocene_extinction), that should be linked this one. Tony ( talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
68.51.124.248 ( talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe the term "Extinction Level Event [ELE]" is a fictional jargon invented by the 1998 movie Deep Impact. I've never seen it used in anything scholarly, and Google Books turns up no references to it before 1998. Most of the results Google turns up are blogs trying to sound scientific (and one music group), which I'd bet anything were all inspired by the movie.
Graph of usage in books over time:
In the movie, a search for "E.L.E." turns up tons of research—but in the movie, Earth is also hit by a meteor. Neither one is real, and I don't think either one is appropriate to mention as fact in an article on this scientific subject. It's possible that after it was invented by the movie, it entered popular use and is now established enough to warrant mention, but I doubt it. I'm removing it from the lede, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to change it back. — MillingMachine ( talk) 14:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest changing the heading "less extinctions" to "list of extinctions". This would mean incorporating the five big extinctions into the table in their appropriate chronological place. Right now, for a complete list, you have to refer to two totally different sections. It is more helpful to readers to have all of them in the same place. If no one objects, I'll do it myself in a couple weeks or so. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I plan on editing the /info/en/?search=Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events section.
I have a cropped image of the Sepkoski Curve from the Milwaukee Public Museum that I plan on adding. However, for the sake of clarity of comparing the list VRS. the image, it would help if I could reverse the numbering of the list, from 1-2-3-4-5, to instead be 5-4-3-2-1 (aka David Letterman's "Top Ten" list).
Does anyone have advice as to how to do it?
LP-mn ( talk) 05:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Only a few million years before the Great Dying (Permian mass extinction), there appears to have been another major ME: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/23/scientists-discover-new-mass-extinction-rivaling-the-death-of-the-dinosaurs/?wpisrc=nl_mix&wpmm=1 , http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2015/04/sixth-extinction-rivaling-dinosaurs-should-join-big-five-scientists-say . Kdammers ( talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead section describes the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction as the most recent extinction, although the Holocene extinction is still ongoing. Would it be more accurate to describe the Holocene extinction as the most recent extinction event? Jarble ( talk) 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like @
Oiyarbepsy: to justify the content they restored on an item-by-item basis. They added >6,000 to the article, but I don't see anything like that in any of my reverts. I believe they are talking about another user? Note that "because it had nothing to do with the edit summary" is not a sufficient justification...but first I want to be certain they're even referring to the right edit.
Geogene (
talk)
18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
So there's this excerpt right in the abstract: "Some have suggested that anthropogenic extinctions may have begun as early as when the first modern humans spread out of Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, which certainly coincides with megafaunal extinction in Australia, New Zealand and Madagascar".
Can you please explain this relating to New Zealand, which wasn't populated by humans until some hundred years ago? See History of New Zealand and Fauna of New Zealand. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.254.62 ( talk) 10:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying that I don't recognize climate change, but the fact that many scientists say that humans are only a part of the Holocene Extinction Event probably means that there should be more than just humans in the factors section. Gug01 ( talk) 23:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Having read that there is no clarification on the expression "fungal spike" and having found some references on the internet, I decided to put them here, since I do not know how to add to the bibliography / reference section
Not only do I do it because I do not know how to do it, but also because I do not feel comfortable in contributing anymore to Wikipedia with typing of original texts nor edition of pre-existing texts, since I was previously harassed in Portuguese-speaking Wikipedia. It is up to you whether or not to use the references contained in these links:
http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/oberseminar/os03_04/Zamecnik.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.118.149.101 ( talk) 01:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is plagued with this problem in scientific articles. The overall goal of Wikipedia is global encyclopedic information. There is no Wikipedia objective (that I am aware of) which includes scientific abbreviations without definition. This is not an encyclopedia for scientists, alone. This is not an encyclopedia for college students, alone. This is an encyclopedia for everyone. Should it be written for first graders? Naturally the answer to that is no. There must be a line drawn. For example, many states require that automobile insurance policies are legally supposed to be targeted to "no more than" the 9th grade reading level. Think about that for a moment. Anyone who drives a car is supposed to be able to read to a 9th grade level, roughly the same age as the minimum age that drivers licenses begin being issued. Notice that they require this for a targeted group of readers. The one who believes that nearly all readers are above the 9th grade, is badly mistaken. I am a relatively intelligent person. I am a nurse with many years experience. That puts me at college level and I'm even in the science business. That said, I had to look up Ma which is mentioned time and again, but never defined. I have been reading articles all day about meteoric events and as we all do, one click leads to another and and another and another and so here I am. I have seen Ma used in a number of related articles and zero define it. That is very sad not to mention extremely disappointing. While I do not believe that dumbing down is an answer, I do believe that any article should explain what readers are actually reading. Take the magazine Archaeology. Articles published in that magazine never use scientific terms without definition. Linking to a definition at the beginning of the article is also wrong because then the reader has to figure out where a tiny word like "ma" first shows up. For example, using Ctrl+F Chrome finds (today) 370 instances in this article. Readers need to be able to easily find the full word and its meaning on the same page, without having to Ctrl+F the page, then being forced to Google the abbreviation which also does not explain it. Google says (today) that it means Master of Arts, which it does. A search even on Wikipedia (today) has so many instances that picking out the exact meaning is difficult at best, and at its worst, simply impossible. Now perhaps you can see the problem. Yes, I figured it out... finally... but I am unfamiliar with the content here so it would be unwise for me to edit this article as well as others with similar topics. Many thanks for listening. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
1) Life before last universal common ancestor was extinguished by it and its successors as a more efficient form of life and one able to change while retaining new characteristics long enough for them to prevail. 2) The life that helped to create the banded iron formation extinguished life before it with extreme acid/base alternations in the oceans. 3) When evolution eventually found a way out of that cycle of alterations, the life forms that caused it were extinguished. Even though no discrete fossils were found and then not found, extinction can be scientifically established by of other evidence. HugoGB ( talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Extinction event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Although many biology sources state this as a fact, the evidence isn't that strong. Nick Lane put it like this [21]:
"Microbes are not equivalent to large animals: their population sizes are enormously larger, and they pass around useful genes (such as those for antibiotic resistance) by lateral transfer, making them very much less vulnerable to extinction. There is no hint of any microbial extinction even in the aftermath of the Great Oxygenation Event. The 'oxygen holocaust', which supposedly wiped out most anaerobic cells, can't be traced at all; there is no evidence from either phylogenetics or geochemistry that such an extinction ever took place. On the contrary, anaerobes prospered."
I think this should be mentioned. Robert Walker ( talk) 16:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a canonical mass extinction because it's inferred from biology, and not observed in the fossil record. As such it's of no use to paleontologists in dating strata, which was the original purpose of studying the others. Putting it in the same table with the others involves some level of SYN. Geogene ( talk) 22:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
An historical context section is missing. When did the concept of 'mass extinction' or 'extinction event' first appear? By whom was it put forward? What evidence or dicovery brough the idea to the fore? How did it evolve to the modern understanding? Urhixidur ( talk) 02:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the footnotes 59 and 60 don't lead to any citation, where did the number of Flood basalt events and Sea-level falls come from? Someone's original research? Either way, I feel confused by the lines under this header, and I hope someone can clarify it by fixing it up. 2604:3D08:5082:7A00:D0A5:B59E:38DA:CB10 ( talk) 06:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Every few years, someone edits the article to add “-level” to the phrase “Extinction event.” “Extinction-level event” is fictional scientific jargon from the movie Deep Impact. It also inspired the title of a Busta Rhymes album that came out shortly after the movie. Maybe someday it will become a mainstream scientific term—it pops up in a few papers now and then—but it is being added to the article by people who don’t realize that the movie was not describing real scientific terminology. Please stop adding it unless—or until—it becomes a mainstream scientific term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwarmOfAnts ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Should probably add a note explaining why these are not included among major extinctions, cf. explanation here (high percentage of taxa, but absolute # of taxa is low due to paucity of fossil-producing life in Cambrian) -- makes sense but needs a source. -- Middle 8 ( s) talk • privacy
So the text header for the marine extinction graph is not formatted right, with the eon link (can't remember the eon name while writing this, lol) superimposed over the image. I'm on an Android phone using the Chrome app, if that helps. I would fix it myself but don't know enough about the site to not break it further! 12.208.118.66 ( talk) 04:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)