Talk:History of paleontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	History of paleontology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Earth sciences Portal History of paleontology is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Biology Portal History of paleontology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

I started this article because I thought the paleontology article did not have enough historical information. Right now it stops at the middle of the 19th century. The sections for the 2nd half (post Darwin) 19th century and the 20th century need to be filled out. Rusty Cashman 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Rusty. One of my students is currently writing a history of geology article, which should be up by mid-December. When that goes up, we'll have to try to cross-pollinate these two partly-overlapping topics. Earth sciences in general, especially their history, are extremely under-represented on WP. Maybe in the spring I'll find the time to snuggle up with Stephen Jay Gould's big book and fill out some of later stuff for this article.--ragesoss 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a History of geology article is badly needed. The History subsection of the current geology article is awfully brief. Rusty Cashman 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a little stuff for 2nd half of the 19th century but it could still use more work. Rusty Cashman 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 GA Review 2 Second GA candidate review 3 Ready for FA? 3.1 Suggestions 3.2 Before FAC 3.3 some comments

[edit] GA Review

Frst off, a list of thoughts on the first read-through.

• "The past two decades have seen intensified studies of fossils from the Cambrian period, a time referred to as the Cambrian Explosion during which a burst of new animal forms appeared, including most phyla we recognize today." - Far, far too overloaded of a sentence. Break it up.

• "As early as the 6th century BC Xenophanes of Colophon recognized that some fossil shells were remains of shellfish and indicated that what was now dry land was once under the sea. It is also well known that in one of his unpublished notebooks Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) concluded that some fossil sea shells were the remains of shellfish. However in both cases it is clear that the fossils were relatively complete remains of shellfish species that very closely resembled living species and thus were relatively easy to classify." A bit awkward.

• "As the etymology of the word fossil, which comes from the Latin for things having been dug up, indicates, the term was applied to wide variety of stone and stone like objects without regard to whether they might have an organic origin." Awkward interjection.

• ...their properties, both physical and mystical... I know what this is supposed to mean. This is because I read Stephen Jay Gould's report on it. I doubt most would.

• 17th century: You correctly use italics for the title of a work by Hooke. However, it goes on to put quotes from Hooke in italics. They should instead be in quotes, as they are not titles.

• "William Smith, a surveyor and mining engineer, made extensive use of fossils and the principle of faunal succession to make sense of rock strata as he worked on the first geological map of England during the late 1790s and early 1800s." Faunal succession needs explained.
• "These were pioneering applications of stratigraphy." - Surely this can be better worked in, e.g. "In a pioneering application of stratigraphy, William Smith...." Consider defining stratigraphy at some point.
• The section on "The age of reptiles" is awfully jumpy. Starts at Cuvier, for no apparent reason goes to Anning, deviates wildly off-topic to jumpt to a list of paleotologists Anning worked with, then to one of those paleontologists... there's no particular structure.
• The section on uniformitarianism is simply awful. Lyell's pioneering insights reduced to advocacy, his mistaken beliefs about the fossil record rightfully mentioned, but his later advocacy of Darwin ignored.
• The section on Geological time scale, "Geologists such as Adam Sedgwick, and Roderick Murchison continued, despite some contentious disputes, making great advances in stratigraphy as they described new geological epochs such as the Cambrian, the Silurian, the Devonian, and the Permian. By the early 1840s much of the geologic timescale had taken shape. All three of the periods of the Mesozoic era and all the periods of the Paleozoic era except the Ordovician had been defined.[12] It remained a relative time scale with no method of assigning any of the periods absolute dates. It was understood that not only had there been an age of reptiles preceding the age of mammals, but there had a time (during the Cambrian and the Silurian) when life had been restricted to the sea, and a time (prior to the Devonian) when invertebrates had been the dominant form of animal life." is far too short. More detail, if possible.
• In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx, an animal with both teeth and feathers and a mix of other reptilian and avian features, was discovered in a limestone quarry in Bavaria and another would be found in 1881. - odd use of tenses. And the whole bit on transitional fossils is... awkward. Reduces Darwin too much, needs more connecting text. Why do we suddenly stop seeing who discovered things?
• Why a section on "Developments in America", and not ones on other areas? I realise that it was, and is, an important source of fossils, but it sounds like Americocentricism under that title.
• "Some developments in the 20th century" VERY unencyclopedic title
• "The 2nd was the theory of plate tectonics..." Don't use abbreviations.
• The whole 20th century section needs expansion and reworking into as coherent of a story as is consistant with reality. Trace a few of the lines out.

Well! That gets me to the end of the article. In many ways, this is a good article: It's well-referenced, more-or-less accurate, except by ommission - but it lacks coherence. Too many collections of facts, not enough detail, and not enough attention paid to trends. I just don't think it's ready yet. Sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly provides me some things to work on :) Thanks for the detailed input, especially the suggestions about what sections need expansion and what terms need explanation, and also for the style points. The 20th century is a big problem for any history of science article of this scope (for another example see History of biology it is simply not possible to cover it in the same level of detail as previous eras as the amount of activity begins to expand exponentially. I will see what I can do to improve it however, and maybe some other editor will have a bright idea. I see your point about needing to point out trends more explicitly, and I think that is the root of the problem with the "Developments in North America" section. The point was supposed to be that prioir to 1850, with a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of paleontology (and geology for that matter) had been done in Europe. Therefore when the American West suddenly opened up to systematic fossil collection after 1865, it profoundly changed things. Just as the massive expansion of paleontology in China that started in the early 1990s has changed things. However, the article doesn't make this clear enough. Focusing more on trends maybe the only way to do anything with the 20th century. Rusty Cashman 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, and don't get me wrong - this is an excellent start, particularly given you seem to have done it almost entirely yourself. Just needs a bit of fixing up and it'd be well on its way to FA, not just GA. But better to mention everything, as holding back criticism is a false politeness when someone's working hard to make an article better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it has taken a while (I got side tracked by Alfred Russell Wallace and a couple of other wikipedia projects) but I think the issues you raised have now beend addressed. Rusty Cashman 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second GA candidate review

Overall this article is very good and comprehensive. However, this article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold as I think there are some issues that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

• Needs another introductory sentence to lead the reader into the history of the subject before starting on the detailed timeline in the lead. At present the transition from the second to the third sentence is too abrupt.
• that what was now dry land was once under the sea - This is a past event, might be better as "that what was at the time dry land, had once been under the sea"
• "land dwelling" should be hyphenated

2. Factually accurate?:

• "progressive order to the development of life." Not really accurate, evolution is neither progressive or orderly. Reword to something like "Life on earth had undergone constant change." This idea is reinforced later in the article with the statement "earth had a progressive history". Unless you state this idea specifically as an outmoded interpretation - to give the more modern interpretation later, it is best to avoid using it.
• "age of reptiles/age of mammals" Nobody really uses this terminology any more as it involves the selection of one part of the life on earth for artificial elevation as more important than the rest. Prokaryotes have always formed the majority of species and plants and prokaryotes the vast majority of biomass. Large, fierce animals may be impressive, but they are quantitatively insignificant.
• even the appearance of progression in the history of life, were illusions caused by imperfections in that record. As evidence Lyell pointed to the Stonesfield mammal, and to the fact that certain Pleistocene strata showed a mixture of extinct and still surviving species. I don't understand exactly what this means. What did he think a mix of extinct/extant fauna demonstrated?
• "a time (prior to the Devonian) when invertebrates had been the dominant form of animal life." Invertebrates are still the dominant form of animal life. Insects, worms, corals, sponges, jellyfish and arachnids are very successful lineages and are the prominent animals in most ecosystems.
• Extinction "killed off the dinosaurs" - Only the non-avian dinosaurs, the birds survived.
• "statistical analysis of the fossil record that revealed the pattern and importance of mass extinction events." - Might be good to summarise in a sentence what this pattern was, since it is highlighted here.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Very

6. Images?: Good, but a striking lead image (top, right) could be an improvement.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your excellent work so far. Tim Vickers 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I believe all the issues have been addressed completely except for 6 (lead in image) and item 2 bullet 2 (age of mammals age of reptiles). I will continue to look for an ideal lead in image for the upper right corner and I (or someone else) will find one before I consider putting this article through the FAC process. On the "age of reptiles/mammals" issue I have gotten rid of any reference to the "age of mammals" but I am not willing to jettison the phrase "age of reptiles". This is an article on the history of a science and as the "Age of Reptiles" mural in the Peabody museum demonstrates, this phrase/concept is historically important in the development of paleontology and in its poplular perception, which makes its use appropriate in this article. Nor is the phrase completely out of current use by any means as a Google search for "age of reptiles" yeilds more than 54,000 hits many of which are popular culture references such as bands and comic books, but many of which are contemporary science and education sites. Rusty Cashman 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I found one residual "age of mammals" and put this phrase in quotes, to make it clearer that it is a historical concept. Good work. Tim Vickers 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for FA?

I am seriously considering nominating this article for FA. Does anyone see any issues that need to be addressed before I do? Rusty Cashman 08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep myself sane. I am going to start striking through comments I believe have been satisfactorily addressed. If you think I have struck through a comment that has not been addressed please correct me. Rusty Cashman 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

• In the first intro paragraph, "progress was made in understanding the nature of fossils" is passive and too vague, and the work progress gets repeated soon after as well.
• Museums and the role they have played in paleontology are probably the biggest hole in the article. This is something that there is a lot of historical literature about.
• I would like to have seen more about the 20th century connections that grew up between paleontology and other disciplines, particularly climatology, ecology, and origin of life research. There is also no mention of chemical paleontology. I'm not sure how much secondary sourcing we'll be able to find for that, however.
• As a whole, the 20th century section is underdeveloped. In particular, the role of paleontology in the evolutionary synthesis should be elaborated upon.
• Stronger connections should be made in the early sections between the specific work of important paleontologists and proto-paleontologists, and the broader context of natural history practices (especially, the collection and trade of fossils).
• In the "Evolution" section of the 2nd 19th century section, the paleontological arguments opposing evolution (e.g., those of Hugh Miller) probably bear mentioning.
• More should probably be said about paleoanthropology, which comes up incidentally several times but deserves more emphasis in terms of being an occasional driving force in the expansion and popularity of paleontology. Maybe it's just that a disproportionately large amount has been written about this area, but there is a lot that's been written.

--ragesoss 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only implemented the first of your comments so far, because the rest will take some research, but I pretty much agree with all of them. Rusty Cashman 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Before FAC

1. I read over the article, and I cleaned up a lot of redundancies. Another copy edit needs to follow mine. See Tony1 (talk · contribs) for some good exercises in getting rid of redundant writing, and making the article more encyclopedic. There are way too many adverbs like extremely etc. Also there were numerous transitions between active, passive, past perfect, etc. voices. I like the active voice, but it should be consistent.
2. WP:MOS should be followed closely. The lead, for example, wandered all over the place. I tightened it up. Wikilinking was, well, out of hand. Break that bracket key!!!!! (Of course, don't go the other way either.)
3. References. My point only, but look at the better scientific FA articles. They don't use Harvard references, but utilizes the easy-to-click. I know this is my hangup, but I don't support FA's for badly referenced articles (for some reason, I supported Intelligent design, but I was just exhausted fighting the creationists.
4. Speaking of creationists, there should be links or discussion to how religions treat fossils, given the fact that many of the early and continuing battles of paleontology is denial of science by religious types.
5. As per Ragesoss, yes, paleontology is intimately linked to evolution and evolutionary synthesis. An FA article in this area ought to have lots of data on it.
6. Paleontology is a subdiscipline of biology, not geology. But this article makes it sound like the reverse.

All IMHO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you for all the copy edits. My prose can almost always use significant tighening and you clearly improved it. I did restore a couple of things you cut. The most important of which was probably the rejection of Lyell's views on the fossil record, and there was one case (in the geologic timescale section) where you seemed to have reversed my meaning, probably because my original wording was unclear. I have tried to keep the writing tight.

To respond to some of your other comments, yes today paleontology is considered a biologic discipline, but historically it largely developed as a sub discipline of geology. For instance in Britain for most of the 19th century most papers on what we would now call paleontology were reviewed and published under the auspices of the Geological Society. You can see from the following quote from Wallace (which can be found in the Alfred Russel Wallace article) "and why do all the intermediate grades die out (as geology shows they have died out)" that for most of the 19th century the study of the fossil record was called geology. Figures such as Buckland and Mantell, and early in his career Darwin, moved back and forth between what we would now call biology and geology. As Rudwick points out (and as I think I will work into the article), the very first "paleontolists" in the moder sense were fossil experts like William Lonsdale who were geologists that specialized in the classification of particular kinds of fossils to help other geologists with stratigraphy. I will expand coverage of certain topics in the article in response to the comments from rageoss and yourself, but I want to be careful that this does not turn into History of evolutionary thought, or a history of the evolution creationism controversy. The issue of the clickable references came up in the Alfred Russel Wallace FAC and my position then was that it was a really nifty feature for an article like Charles Darwin that has more than 40 references, but not so important for an article like this one that has less than 10. However, I will take a look at the issue again. Rusty Cashman 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I play on this project is that it really has improved my writing. I always felt that I wrote very well, but I was embarrassed as to how tedious my writing could be. Really take a look at Tony1's page. It will help. To your points.

1. Geology vs. biology. I would disagree with your assessment. I think that dating of the fossils was originally a part of geology, but the comparative morphology (or what you call anatomy) was always in the realm of biology. But let's remember, in the 1800's most scientists were "gentlemen" scholars, bored with the life of the rich, etc. Even William Smith (great book, Map that changed the World) was more of a fossil hunter than a comparative biologist.
2. Yes, the very first paleontologists were more geologist than biologist. But by the mid-1850's (maybe earlier), it was clearly a subdiscipline of biology, as it is now.
3. With regards to your Evolution concerns, I completely disagree. Without paleontology, Evolution would have stalled for a century or more. Evolution is the core of paleontology (comparing one fossil requires evolutionary biology, even if the pioneers of the field didn't recognize that fact). Paleontology is today the core of what the creationists would term macro evolution, but what I would call Evolutionary biology. Yes crazy creationists will jump on the article. Happens all the time, we deal with it.
4. References. I personally think an article of this worth requires many more references. I pulled one off my shelf today, without much work. The William Smith biography (it's more than that) is an outstanding reference for this article. That's two off the top of my brain. An article this noteworthy will end up with 50-60 references. If we don't set it up right now, we will be messed up down the road.

Again, all in my not so humble opinion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I never sought to deny that evolution and paleontology were closely associated. The understanding that there was a progression to the development of life played a major role in the early evolutionary theories (or to use a less anachronistic tem theories of the transmutation of species). I hope the intro wording I just did reflects an acceptable compromise. I will also make edits to the main body of the article to make it more clear probably by adding a subsection on the transmutation of species and the fossil record to the early 19th century stuff. There is also no doubt that speculation about the fossil record played a major role in paving the way for Darwin. I thought I was making this clear with all the talk about the successive order of development. Earlier versions used the slightly clearer "progressive development of life" but a GA reviewer objected because modern evolutionary theory frowns on the concept of progress. I will edit the article to make the connection more clear. At the same time it is not true to say that there would be no paleontology without evolution. Most of the prominent early figures in paleontology, Cuvier, Buckland, Sedgwick, and even Lyell were opponents (often strong opponents) of early tranmutational theories. It is true that as knowledge of the fossil record improved it was inevitably going to push people towards evolution, but a history of science article has to accurately reflect what people knew and thought at the time, not where future developments will take them. However inevitable it seems in hindsight. I will check out the new citation technique. Rusty Cashman 10:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you were unhappy about my added subsection on the transmutation of species. I realize that there were some creationist ideas in there. Those ideas were there because the figures whose ideas were being discussed (Hugh Miller and Richard Owen) were in fact creationsists (well actually Owen's position on the subject was rather complex)so it is not surprising they had creationist ideas. Just because I point out this historical truth does not make me a creationist. I have added a sentence that may help by showing how the debate helped pave the way for Darwin's theory. If you are unhappy with the result please discuss it here on this talk page, rather than obliterating my good faith edit (along I may add with the figure that went with the following section). Thanks. Rusty Cashman 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some comments

Since the page is in good shape and reads well, these are just some tweaks you might care to think about:

1. throughout WP palaeo and paleo should be cross-linked. A page should be accessible via either form.

2. Cuvier spans 18-19Cs, but his main influence was in the early 19thC.

3. 19thC. You've left out Gideon Mantell, who is really an important figure. He was right on several issues where Owen was wrong. Deborah Cadbury's book The Dinosaur Hunters is a readable and fairly accurate account of Buckland, Owen and Mantell. Regards Lyell's influence, not only did Darwin have second and third volumes of the Principles sent out to him whilst he was on the Beagle, he actually described himself as a geologist.

4. 20thC. Although it's been all guns blazing since c1965, the earlier part of the 20thC was near stasis between 1914-1965, when mostly for political reasons large parts of the world were closed.

Under 'developments in geology' radio-dating and plates: both so very important you might expand a bit here. Kelvin date of Earth vs now, for example?

5. Cambrian explosion. You featured Burgess Shale, OK, but why not feature Lagerstätten in general, of which B.S. is a good example?

Top 12 Lagerstätten: (*=top 5)

• Ashfall Fossil Beds Nebraska, USA 10mya;
• Auca Mahuevo Patagonia, Argentina 80mya;
• Burgess Shale British Columbia, Canada 530mya; *
• Chengjiang Yunnan Province, China 525mya; *
• Ediacara Hills South Australia 700mya; *
• Green River Formation Wyoming & Colorado, USA 50mya;
• Holzmaden Württemberg, Germany 190mya;
• Hunsrückschiefer Germany 370mya;
• Mazon Creek Northeastern Illinois, USA 300mya;
• Messel Oil Shale Hessen, Germany 49mya;
• Rancho La Brea Southern California, United States 20kya; *
• Solnhofen Limestone Bavaria, Germany 150mya. *

6. You've omitted reference to pre-Vendian fossils, especially the Proterozoic and Archaean record of prokaryotes, originally identified by Walcott (I think). J.W. Schopf (Cradle of Life) is the present-day expert on these matters. Consensus is that cyanobacteria and other prokaryotes go back ~3,500mya.

7. As always, I'm a bit uneasy at too much reliance on secondary sources such as Larson and Bowler, readable as they are. Bowler is outstanding on 18th and 19thC, but weaker on 20thC; and Larson is rather too glib. Rudwick is fine in this case, because he once was a working palaeontologist, and had the good sense to stick to what he knows. In a couple of days I'll offer a few suggestions for modern palaeo references. Regards, Macdonald-ross 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quick responses. 1. Yes, you are right, 2. You have a point and based on this and some comments Frede emailed to me I am proably going to rethink some of the sections and section headings. 3. This comment puzzles me. Mantell is mentioned in the text, in connection with iguanadon, and in a the caption of a figure take from his book Wonders of Geology. Given rageoss's suggestion to talk more about the role of museums in the development of paleontology, I probably will add a mention of his museum as well. I thik the coverage of Lyell is appropriate for this article. This is history of paleontology not History of evolutionary thought. 5. In a "history of" article such as this one that covers a large topic it is critical to avoid too much detail. However, something should be added about Ediacaran fossils. 6. Yes. 7. I am afraid I must disagree with you here. For history of science articles such as this one (or History of biology, and History of evolutionary thought), that cover developments over large periods of time, secondary sources by capable historians like Bowler and Larson, can provide very valuable historical perspecitive and context that is difficult to get from primary sources. Larson can be glib, but his research is good, and he has a talent for summerizing the important points, which is very important in this kind of article. I always welcome new sources. I do think that we need to be careful how much contemporary stuff goes into this article, as opposed to say Paleontology. This is a history of science article, not a science article and there is a difference. I want to thank all of you for your feedback that will help improve the article greatly. Rusty Cashman 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I check I see that there already is a redirect from History of palaeontology to History of paleontology. Were you refering to something else with that comment? Rusty Cashman 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your plan. I'll offer a couple of refs that might help. For an overview of mass extinctions:

• Hallam A. Mass extinctions and their aftermath. Oxford 1997.

For connections between palaeo & evolution (Evolutionary paths):

• Simpson G.G. The major features of evolution. 1953. (A much improved version of Tempo & Mode)
• Carroll, Robert L. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution. Cambridge 1997.

PS: there's a typo same sentence as ref 36. Macdonald-ross 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)