Talk:Paleontology in Oregon
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paleontology in Oregon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dinosaurphilosophy. Peer reviewers: WoodPig.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Some (hopefully) helpful suggestions
[edit]This article is a helpful and clear introduction to Oregon's prehistory, but would benefit immensely from an update. Paleontological research in the state is an issue near and dear to my heart, so I'll happily contribute to the update. Here are some general points to consider:
- The article is fully cited, but draws on relatively few resources, all of which are out of date. Half of the footnotes are drawn from Murray's 42-year-old fossil guide, which itself was not focused explicitly on Oregon fossils. Several texts devoted specifically to Oregon's fossils and geology have been published since this article was last updated[1][2][3].
- While the article is not explicitly biased, it is skewed by its relatively few resources. In particular, the "Indigenous interpretations" section is drawn entirely from Adrienne Mayor's work and would benefit from mention of criticisms raised against her thesis[4].
- Discussion of active paleontological research in the state focuses entirely on popular media reporting and does not include any reference to peer-reviewed work. Both the University of Oregon and Oregon State University have active research programs and the John Day Fossil Beds Monument regularly hosts visiting researchers. These ongoing research programs deserve mention in an article about their research topic. There are also amateur fossil hunting efforts hosted by organizations such as the Willamette Valley Pleistocene Project.
- The list of natural history museums doesn't include the Thomas Condon Paleontology Center. (This would be a minor edit and so I'll likely just go ahead and add that immediately.)
- While this isn't necessarily a problem, it might be useful to distinguish different kinds of paleontology studied in Oregon. The state is host to researchers working in paleobotany, invertebrate paleontology, vertebrate paleontology, and paleoecology; the article also mentions previous work done in paleoichnology. Giving each of these sub-disciplines their own sections could help readers to locate information more easily or to understand better the breadth of paleontological research.
And a couple of relatively minor technical points:
- The current organization of the article suggests a category mistake. Distinguishing a discussion of paleontology in Oregon into "prehistory" and "history" implies that recorded history is a part of paleontology. This in turn implies (first) that history is a subject of paleontological study and (second) that paleontologists would therefore study themselves. (Forgive me; I have a background in philosophy!) A better way to organize the article's information might be to distinguish between Research and Findings.
- Discussion of the Lake County ichnofossils should include mention of the relevant ichnotaxon. Paleontologists may speculate about the makers of fossil tracks, but the possibility that some undiscovered organism might have been the real tracemaker implies that trace attributions are always somewhat doubtful; as a result, paleontologists maintain separate taxonomies for trace fossils and body fossils[5][6]. Reference to the bear track ichnotaxon would therefore be helpful to researchers looking for that information.
Looking forward to working on these!
Dinosaurphilosophy (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Orr, Elizabeth L.; Orr, William N. (2009). Oregon Fossils (Second ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87071-573-0.
- ^ Orr, Elizabeth L.; Orr, William N. (2012). Oregon Geology (Sixth ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87071-681-2.
- ^ Bishop, Ellen M. (2006). In Search of Ancient Oregon: A Geological and Natural History. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 978-0-88192-789-4.
- ^ MacLeod, Norman (2006). "Palaeontologists among the first peoples? Review of "Fossil Legends of the First Americans."" (PDF). Palaeontologia Electronica. 9 (2). Retrieved 23 April 2017.
- ^ Pemberton, S. George; Frey, Robert W. (1982). "Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma". Journal of Paleontology. 56 (4): 843–881.
- ^ Bertling, Markus; et al. (2006). "Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach". Lethaia. 39 (3): 256–286. doi:10.1080/00241160600787890.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|last2=
(help)
Major improvements
[edit]The recent edits by DinosaurPhilosophy have greatly improved the article. I suggest to re-rank it to a B-class or higher for quality (I am not familiar for the rules for changing ranks). Answer.to.the.rock (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Was Arctotherium really Oregon?
[edit]How do we know the certain fossil we found belonged to an Arctotherium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- C-Class Oregon articles
- Low-importance Oregon articles
- WikiProject Oregon pages
- C-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- C-Class Palaeontology articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- WikiProject Palaeontology DYK hooks that received over 10,000 views