A fact from Protopone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the extinct ant genus Protopone is known from both amber (pictured) and compression fossils?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
Kevmin, just so this doesn't clutter up other ant talk pages... The text specifically mentions that the Messel dates to 47 Ma, and the Sakhalin locality has also been assigned a date of 44.6 Ma in Barden (2017). In fact, all of my other date range additions are sourced from there. If you don't want the authority, sure, but I see no reason not to be as specific as possible on the dating. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lythronaxargestes: I would note the very top of the table in which the age is give, where it states specifically that ages marked with an * are controversial in age, thus its better not to use the very oddly specific date (which is referenced to the paleobiology database and thus to be taken as VERY suspect). Its better to go with papers specifically on the deposit, and not on Barden 2017.--Kevmin§18:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the case of Cephalopone then. It's from the Messel, which is well-constrained in terms of its age to be 47 Ma. Is a generic "Middle Eocene" still better in this case? 18:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
In that case I think a good solution is to go with {{fossil_range|47|47|earliest=48.6|latest=40.4| [[Lutetian]]}} Which keeps the sightly more compact fossil range structuring on the output, and I have made the change. Looking at the Reference given for the McAbee and Klondike Mountain formations (which I have extensive knowledge of based on years of research, Bardens paper is picking a single reference for each age, and not reflecting what the current state of the dating may be (KMF is not considered to be possibly 55.8 myo in any current papers as the dating is very specific to be 49.5 +- 0.5ish)--Kevmin§18:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}