# Talk:Paleontology

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paleontology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021003026/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/geo/2006-1213-210452/UUindex.html to http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/geo/2006-1213-210452/UUindex.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106201614/http://134.106.242.33/krumbein/htdocs/Archive/397/Krumbein_397.pdf to http://134.106.242.33/krumbein/htdocs/Archive/397/Krumbein_397.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

..."is often said[by whom?] to work by conducting experiments to disprove hypotheses". Obviously, the idea is best known from the works of Karl Popper. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, isn't that more specifically paleobiology? Other fields such as paleoclimatology, paleomagnetism, and other fields are also included in paleontology. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In my experience (MS in geology) paleontology includes the study of the environment in which the paleo-organisms evolved. It is more than just the fossil organisms and their biology. Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Then why is Paleontology still described as the study of prehistoric life forms? Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
A complete study of any life form will include their ecology, their adaptations to their habitat and climate, and interaction with other organisms. Ontology deals with the nature of being, so technically Palaeontology will be the broadest subject area, although in practice it's probably more narrowly defined by those working as palaeontologists. Such terms can have more than one meaning. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but you're not studying the pre-historic life forms while studying pale-climatology. Even if you do, that is in an inter-disciplinary session. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This article says paleontology "is the scientific study of life ... It includes the study of fossils ..."
The article on fossils says "Paleontology is the study of fossils ..."
These don't seem consistent,  and one needs amendment. Masato.harada (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

When you say "is the scientific study of life," are you aware that you're using the ellipses to omit the amending clause of "that existed prior to the start of the Holocene epoch (roughly 11,700 years before present)"? Mr Fink (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the grammar lesson. So which article needs correction? Masato.harada (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
in the absence of any other comments, I've amended Fossils to say 'Paleontology includes the study of fossils'. Masato.harada (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for the statement in the lead, that palaeontology is the study of life "prior to the start of the Holocene epoch"? Because apparently I'm a palaeontologist without knowing it! But it has been tagged with {{citation needed}} for nearly a year and is at odds with most definitions I can find online, which link palaeontology specifically to the study of fossils. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: As relevant to our parallel discussion on the White Sands footprints. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The article Fossil cites this. Quote from that source: Fossils are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric life. The critical factor is age. Fossils have to be older than 10,000 years. Although this pretty much nails it, I agree that a better, more academic source is in order. I will watch out for one. Palaeontology is usually defined as the study of past life, i.e., not modern/recent life, and recent redirects you to the Holocene article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
As we discussed on the White Sands page, such a definition would imply that vast quantities of human artefacts and ecofacts produced during the Palaeolithic are "fossils", even though they are never described as such as in reliable sources. With that in mind I can't see how this could be the mainstream definition. – Joe (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
 IJReid's recent rewrite has replaced this with the even looser definition, the scientific study of the life of the past. This can't possibly be the mainstream working definition of palaeontology? Read at face value, it would annex evolutionary biology, history, archaeology, evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary psychology, paleoanthropology, paleobotany, paleobiology, palynology, historical ecology – the list goes on. There are no citations for this definition in the lead but presumably it to the opening sentence of #Concept: Paleontology (also spelled palaeontology) is the study of life of the past, characterized but not defined by the study and interpretation of fossils..
Of the two sources cited for this, [1] does indeed begin with the sentence palaeontology is the study of life from the past, but throughout the article it clearly assumes that it is in practice the study of past life through fossils and that fossils are primarily traces of life in stone (e.g. in the abstract, The winds of change have come partly from palaeontologists seeking to broaden the impact of their studies [...] Consequently, impressions of past life preserved in stone are coming alive. Fossils are being described and analyzed using new tools and languages as the static fossil record becomes a record of transitions in patterns that can be explained and related to biological, ecological, climatic and tectonic changes.). Indeed this seems to be the author's primary way of distinguishing palaeontology from evolutionary developmental biology (which is the subject of the article) – the latter is the study of past live through its living descendants. [2] straightforwardly says palaeontology is characterized, but is not fully defined, by having its own objective subject matter: fossils.
These two sources are consistent with all others I can find in stating that palaeontology is characterised by the study of fossils; just as other scientific stud[ies] of the life of the past are characterised by their own subject matter (archaeology through human artefacts, historical ecology through written records, evolutionary biology through living specimens and their genomes, etc). I can only assume that the definition of palaeontology in this article has slipped in attempt to accommodate the fact that palaeontology has fuzzy edges and sometimes blurs into adjacent fields or uses material that isn't technically fossilised (as the Science article above puts it, without really departing from his own science, a palaeontologist may even find himself engaged in work that does not directly involve any fossils). But this is normal for all disciplines. We shouldn't be trying to come up with 'bulletproof' definitions of things at the expense of representing what the sources say; certainly not when the result is a lead sentence that contradicts the vast majority of reliable sources and with dozens of other Wikipedia articles. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind the additional mention of fossils to the lede to represent what is in the body. I think you're largely right that Paleo is characterized by fossils, and many sources also specify that fossils are not the only subject matter. A lot of subfields focus instead on things that aren't even "past life" but are just old rocks, like the interpretations of paleoclimatology just from whether the rocks are derived from fluvial, alluvial, or arid environments. I would personally define paleontology as the study of the "geologic and biologic history of Earth", but until I can find that in a citation I think the current sentence fits best. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)