Talk:Living fossil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Living fossil is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. See comments. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5082264.stm <- This has to be added to the examples.
- This was done (but not by me) Pro bug catcher 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Examples
Why does the introduction to the list of examples say that they are informally known as living fossils? The beginning of the article deines what a living fossil is, so these examples should fulfill that definition. If nobody thinks that these examples aren't really living fossils, then I shall remove the word 'informally'.
- It is not a formally defined or used term in biology. Its use is restricted to the popular press and informal discussions as far as I know (correct me if I'm mistaken). I just made that clear upfront. Vsmith 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Vsmith, it's a colloquially used term. Nonetheless, it is easy to see how an encyclopodia user would seek out the meaning. I am wondering how the link to www.living-fossils.com survived, since there ain't no science to be found there. SNP 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- (No science there IMO also), but I left it because it may bring up a point : creationists (some at least) use living fossils as evidence for creation.Pro bug catcher 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other animals for inclusion
Sharks and dragonflies? - Zephyris Talk 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well the frilled sharks are in and Epiophlebia is a relict, not really a living fossil "Anisozygoptera" (as was long believed).
- A "living fossil" must be a) a "late survivor" of an ancient lineage b) belong to a species-poor group. The Cypriot mouse really stretches it to the point of credibility on both accounts; if that's in, the oxpeckers would certainly qualify (I have deliberately left them out since they are not generally considered living fossils), let alone the Bearded Reedling. I find the latter too interesting to leave out BTW; also added a few other nice birdies. Dysmorodrepanis 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Factual Error
Even though Keith Richards is a living fossil, he isn't in this context —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.83.98 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
- That's simply Wikipedia:Vandalism. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Uncategorized organisms
I noticed some articles are not categorized under the Living fossils category. Some of these articles are Cycads, the Frilled shark, the Opossum, the Hoatzin, the Cassowary, the Muskox, Crocodilia, Brachiopods, and Apterygota (Thysanura and Archaeognatha).
--RingManX 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've noticed most articles on Wikipedia are not categorized as Living fossils :-) However, if the species you mention can be classified as living fossiles, feel free to justify their being a living fossile in the respective articles, and then add the category to them. Classical geographer 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- More seriously, the term "living fossil" is fairly informal and much misused. I'm surprised we have a category for it really. Lazarus taxon, by contrast, has a more concrete definition (a species that disappears from the (known) fossil record only to suddenly reappear in more recent strata after a period of apparent extinction), so would make for a better category. Of course, the basis for living fossils or Lazarus taxa is always provisional, since a new find from intermediate strata can revise this status. Anyway, just me grumbling. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok. I've read of that happening with the Coelacanth and the Takahe, but I didn't know the term was Lazarus taxon. I learned something new. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how to justify those organisms as living fossils. Most of them appear unchanged from their fossil ancestors. Others, like the Hoatzin and the Cassowary, exhibit similar traits to their fossil ancestors. Still, some others appear to be leftover from a prehistoric time period where most other species from that period became extinct. For example, the Muskox is leftover from the ice age. I'm not sure if that is enough to justify them as being living fossils.
--RingManX 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I've read of that happening with the Coelacanth and the Takahe, but I didn't know the term was Lazarus taxon. I learned something new. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how to justify those organisms as living fossils. Most of them appear unchanged from their fossil ancestors. Others, like the Hoatzin and the Cassowary, exhibit similar traits to their fossil ancestors. Still, some others appear to be leftover from a prehistoric time period where most other species from that period became extinct. For example, the Muskox is leftover from the ice age. I'm not sure if that is enough to justify them as being living fossils.
-
