Talk:Paleontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleontology is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Subfields

I reorganized this page a bit, and realized there were two paragraphs talking about the major subdivisions of the field. Of course, they are completely different. Are both accurate characterizations? If they are both reasonable but lie along different dimensions, it would be nice if they text explained that.

Thanks. My work can always use editing (and spell checking). I didn't intend to present alternate characterizations of the field, and would never have read what I wrote that way although now that it's been pointed out ... Let me think some on it.

"The work done in paleontology can be divided into field work, collections management, fossil preparation and systematic description of new species."

Are these the actual names of each subfield, or do they have more "official-sounding" names?  :-) Can we start writing articles about each? I'm interested in the details of how fossils are prepared and how the shape, diet, morphology etc. of a creature is determined from its remains, especially minimal remains. - Omegatron 17:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've just added to these and so far they are rather arbitary. 'Work done' varies according to what kind of fossil(s) you are studying, why and how. There's no standard, although field-work, lab work (preparing / processing samples), analysis and data collection, writing up / publication, conservation / management, would be a fair framework. NickW 12:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Jefferson

He should not be called a paleontologist like in this article. Someone who just takes an intrest in Paleontology should be refered to as a Paleoenthusiast, not an actual Paleontologist.

I beg to differ. Palæontologists are people that study ancient life. Thomas Jefferson did just that. Although he wasn't a practising palæontologist, he still studied the subject lightly in order to take an interest in it. NOTE: 'Paleoenthusiast' isn't a word according to any of my dictionaries. --Dendodge 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate: is Paleontology a Science?

Yes. John.Conway 02:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Why the question? NickW 11:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Ok. Is History a Science? Of course not? --Kubrick 908 23:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Does History use the scientific method? No. Is its scope natural history? No. So where's the analogy? NickW 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


History uses scientifical methods if you ask me. Either you consider Paleontology as a Science, or you don't. If Paleontology is indeed scientifical, then the only difference is on the objectives of its investigations: to be honest, I don't see the reason why something, because it's "natural", can be considered as scientifical whereas "human" history is not. As far as i'm concerned, i don't think History is a Science. (I could explain it further... and later) Therefore Paleontology is not: both use scientifical investigations, but it's not BECAUSE your methods are scientifical... that you are scientific. --Kubrick 908 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course is Palaeontology a science. No doubt about that. Palaeontology uses scientific methods and is fully interlinked with other fields of science (geology, biology). Why should it be not be a science? That's like... say claiming chemistry was not a science. 83.129.54.228 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree BUT everything you mentionned could be said about History too. --Kubrick 908 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But you still need the knowledge of science to discover history. --Yiee.ha 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So it's all science really... --Yiee.ha 16:42, 1 February2006 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone here know a palaeontologist named Charles Doolittle Walcott?Yiee.ha 15:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To be correct, altough Paleontology is a science that refers to natural and ancient history, it is still considered a science. Paleontology uses the scientific classification system and it focuses on ancient biology. Isn't Biology also a Science? Paleontology also strongly uses scientific method and that is why courses in paleontology offer it with lab. For the person to refer history as not a science, is politically incorrect because history falls under the category of scocial science. That's right social science.

General history is the study of the past, evidence is not necessary only the notion of the events, but in Archaeology you need the evidence of a theory to support your conclussion like in Palaeontology.Enlil Ninlil 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't a science you wouldn't need an MSc to get a job as a palaeontologist. --Dendodge 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a difference between Paleontoogy and Geology?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiee.ha (talk • contribs) 2006-02-24 02:02:32 (UTC)

Paleontology is a sub science of geology. Geology is the study of everything on the Earth's outermost layer, the crust. That means that ancient biological life is embedded in the science of Geology. Paleontology is a geological science thats focuses on fossilization when geology is more ambigous of the matter.

Paleontology and Geology are closely related and can never be completely separated since studying fossils gives you information about the history of the rock layers that contain them and vice versa, but I would view Paleontology as also a sub science of biology also. Paleontology is the study of the history of life, and especially in the last century and a half or so has been much concerned with evolutionary theory. Of course you can never really separate the history of life from the history of the earth because, as limestone and coral reefs (among many other things) show they shape each other. Rusty Cashman 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Geology studies rocks, palæontology studies the fossils inside them. Palæontologists need a firm understanding of geology though. --Dendodge 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

It works.

maru (talk) contribs 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erm,.,if I wanted to major Paleontology (dinosaur-related) in College(University)

Where would make a good place? Advices please,,

Study science esp. chemistry and biology in high school. As for colleges, we would have to know where you are and where you want to study to tell you more. Nowimnthing 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm in a boarding school in S.Korea, and...I'd like it if it's around the west coast, in California.
You should probably check out the University of Berkeley, San Diego State, University of California Riverside and UCLA. This is a good page about becoming a paleontologist. For grad school, if you stay with dinosaurs, you will want to check out programs in the Montana or Colorado area as that is where the best digs are. Nowimnthing 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help. I really appreciate it. By the way, could you recommend what APs and SAT IIs to take?

Any in England? Preferably near Grimsby but I can travel. --Dendodge 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on History of Paleontology

I think this article could use a section on the history of paleontology. Either that or a link to a separate article on the history of Paleontology. Which do people think would be more appropriate? Rusty Cashman 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I created a History of Paleontology article. It could use some help especially for the period after the mid 19th century.


[edit] Problem with fundamental definition of Paleontology?

A colleague has raised with me an issue with the definition. The definition says "the study of the history and development of life on Earth, including that of ancient plants and animals, based on the fossil record". His contention is that Paleontology is the study of fossil records and their attributes (fullstop) from which inferences may be made as to the history and development of life on Earth. He contends that zoology (or some other ology) is the study of the history and development of life on Earth, and that the limit of Paleontology is the study of the fossil records. Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk)

He is somewhat correct, but palaeontology includes more than just fossils. To understand the fossil you have to know how it might have died, either naturally or in a land slide etc, type of habitat it could have inhabited, associated fauna. So a good knoledge of rock and soil type, anatomy, taxonomy as well as a predicted temperature of the time etc. So the fossil is only part of the study of palaeontology. Enlil Ninlil 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Palaeontology is an extremely broad category, different palaentologists specialize in different areas. Some concentrate only on the attributes, whereas others look deeper and into what they represent and draw conclusions about prehistoric life. Palaeontology is basically the study of anything prehistoric. Zoology is purely the study of modern animals, although it is important for a palaeontologist to study zoology in order to gain a further understanding of prehistoric organisms. --Dendodge 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling differences.

Surely the alternate spelling should be Pæleontology, not palæontology? Am unsure weather to change without confirmation that is correct, any help? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with a lower case 'p'. --Dendodge 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pæleontology is technically the primary spelling but because it contains a special character it is seldom used. --Dendodge 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it should be Palæontology. Although, you're right, the "correct" spelling is often considered obsolete, the brits translating æ to ae, and the americans to e. Verisimilus T 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are the dangers of being a palaeontologist?

any help?

Heatstroke, bandits, customs officials, and accidentally hitting someone or yourself with your tools?--Mr Fink 04:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Landslides, waves, frostbite, civil wars, getting lost in an arid environment. Yer RED TAPE. Enlil Ninlil 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Complete lack of a formal career path; uncertainty of tenure even if you're the one in a hundred that gets that far; overall lack of money and poor working conditions; bitchiness between peers over limited grants and publishing space; depression and lack of respect compared with people doing something more obviously useful; having to deal with the fact all your friends who got proper jobs now earn ten times more money than you do... The happiest palaeontologists I know are the amateurs who got jobs as businessmen or doctors or whatever, and then get to go on nice comfortable fossil collecting trips wherever the heck they want without having to fill in a billion grant applications and then publishing a stack of garbage papers to justify things afterwards.

[edit] Why is there a zoology info box here?

Why? It seems completely out of place. Also, the text of this article I believe needs a great deal of work. Will anyone be offended if I take a crack at a signficant rewrite?

Profberger 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the Zoology box is out of place - and misleading (listing branches of Zoology but no reference to palaeontology). A rewrite would be good! NickW 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree and removed. It's suitable for palaeozoology but not here. Also, I think 'plant and animal fossils' should be changed to something less large multicellular eukaryote-centric. Richard001 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] etymology note

Παλαιός (Palaios) is the greek word for old not paleos. So it's better to spell the term as palaiontology (this is the main lemma in good dictionaries (i.e. oxford). "ον" (On)=being:


singular

nominative: Το ον, prossessive: Του όντος, accusative: Το ον


plural nominative: Τα όντα, prossessive: Των όντων, accusative: Τα όντα

"Λόγος"= speech, thought, proportion, ratio

[edit] Copyright violation removed

Removed the section on Robert Bakker as it was a direct copy from http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/biographies/MainBiographies/B/Bakker/1.html - Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)