Talk:Neogene

message: "one of the most rare species of camel also existed in this time, known as the guacoptrus, or carnivorous mountain alpaca, who lived in Venusualia." Guess how many results "guacoptrus" turns up on google?  I don't know much about the subject, but I'm guessing it is very not true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.44.79 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuppers, can't even spell Venezuela. It's going away. Awickert (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was just added today by a vandal - thanks for catching it. Awickert (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This can't be right 

message: I know that debate about the Quaternary exists, but there's no reference to it when it's mentioned that the Neogene could continue to today or end at the Quaternary. My sense, if there is no disagreement, is to follow the ICS and end the Neogene at the beginning of the Pleistocene. Anyone have any strong opinions? Awickert (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an objection: The Quaternary is far too short to be comparable in duration to periods of earlier eras, by which I mean the Cretacious and earlier. A Neogene that spans to the present, however, spans a full 23,000,000 years and is basically comparable to those earlier periods. Besides, here is a reference to support a current Neogene. Just read that 1st paragraph. [] There we go. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaternary 

message: My sense is that the Quaternary exists because it is a mapping unit.  Glacial advances in North America and Europe left distinct deposits, either directly as glacial sediments or indirectly as the result of major sea level fluctuations and regional precipitation changes brought about by the glacial advances.  Marine geologists deal with the earth as a whole, and recognize the Neogene mainly as a time term, ranging from the base of the Miocene to the present day.  The Neogene refers to a period when the continents were more or less in the present day positions.  The overwhelming majority of published scientific articles appear to use Neogene in this sense, based on a search on the Internet. Including the Quaternary and Holocene in the Neogene makes sense to all earth scientists who are not overwhelmed by the importance of Northern Hemisphere glaciation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diatom857 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neogene 

message: This page needs a 'Key Events' table. A Template is available to make it look like all the other Era time periods. i.e. Template:Jurassic graphical timeline 
-- Denton22 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Events 

message: I like this period.
--Neogene252 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm named because of this period 

message: The wikipedia entry on the Tertiary states 'Tertiary is the former term for the geologic period from 66 million to 2.58 million years ago, a time span that lies between the superseded Secondary period and the Quaternary. The Tertiary is no longer recognized as a formal unit by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, but the word is still widely used. The traditional span of the Tertiary has been divided between the Paleogene and Neogene Periods and extends to the first stage of the Pleistocene Epoch, the Gelasian age'. Would it improve this article if there was a mention of how the Tertiary once encompased this period? I'm no expert on geological time so perhaps someone with expertise in this area could give it some thought, after all, according to Wikipedia the term Tertiary 'is still widely used'.
86.139.43.209 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Tertiary? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neogene. 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/20060923053134/http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/QP%2016-1.pdf to http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/QP%2016-1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've edited a sentence in the Flora and Fauna section, because it asserted that hominin ancestors of chimpanzees and modern humans moved from southern Europe into Africa. This is counter to the current consensus (the 'Out of Africa' theory) and is based on a recently discovered tooth. This evidence is thin and disputed, and while it undoubtedly has a place in the human evolutionary story, it doesn't seem to be strong or convincing enough to rewrite the accepted origin theory.--Dom Damian (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hominin origin. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is ‘Neogene body juices’ really the formal name for the rocks of this period?  I don't have the expertise to disagree, but I can't help suspecting some vandalistic mischief (poor Vandals! – misunderstood artists and Mediterranean hegemons).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanGray (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism?