Talk:Devonian

message: New dates have been entered: " (408.5 million years ago (mya)) to the beginning of the Mississippian subperiod of the Carboniferous (360 mya)" Can we get a source, whatever the mainstream current textbook says? --Wetman 23:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't changed, they were swapped (correctly: the larger number is the earlier date). I just changed them to correspond to the dates in Geologic timescale, which uses a current (2004) standard reference. 68.81.231.127 20:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ) It got reverted back so I added a much stronger cite when I improved the intro paragraphs. 68.81.231.127 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New dates

message: I am sorry to see this creaky antique label reintroduced. We live in the "Age of Insects", after all, not the "Age of Mammals" as the Victorians imagined. It sets the wrong tone from the very outset. --Wetman 21:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add a caveat or some additional discussion. An encyclopedia shouldn't ignore a common synonym, but we can explain it. And while not particularly accurate (the "Age of Trees, Crawly Things and Fish" does have a kind of lilt), it does at least focus on one of the important changes. 68.81.231.127 00:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it still common? It certainly was when I was in grade school, back in the "Age of the Tailfin." "Age of..." gives me a vision of the murals painted by Charles R. Knight in the 1920s. Might just be my problem, but "Age of Chivalry" "Age of Reason" add little useful information. But as for "Devonian" to conjure a vision of magnificence, well, how about "Devonian reefs?" --Wetman 01:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Knight's earlier work was better, before everyone bought into the "slow, sluggish, and static" meme. "Age of Fish" is the most common synonym for Devonian; it's certainly more common than "Old Red Age" or "Greenhouse Age", both of which I have more problems with (they're artifacts of a sampling bias). But it's probably not common enough that it needs marquee billing. 68.81.231.127 03:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: To my way of thinking, this puts it in proper perspective. --Wetman 00:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Age of Fish"

message: This section is really confusing regarding plant life. It is bout saying that early Devonian plants lacked roots and vascular tissue, at the same time stating that rooted plants creating stable soils is one of the factors separating the Devonian from the Silurian. Also, the first and second paragraph overlap. I suggest keeping the first sentence and remove the rest of the paragraph to cleat the article up a bit.Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrestrial biota

message: The section on paleography seems to have errors and contradictions. The second paragraph about Euramerica is basically fine. That continent began forming at the end of the Silurian and consolidated with suturing and mountain building in the Devonian. Pangaea was not simply Europe and the North American craton (Laurentia). It was primarily a Permian and Mesozoic supercontinent formed after the collision of Euramerica and Gondawana. Therefore, the second paragraph and the initial part of the third are contradictory. - Parsa (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You are right. Fixed. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleography 

message: This article is WPs only reference (as I could find) to "greening of the continents", so I created a Redirect from that expression.  However, NewScientist (6 Feb, p39) places that event 750Ma - nearly twice as old.  Something's seriously amiss here - urgent fix req'd!!! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest I can find is this, which has the wrong date but close to what you say. The couple of the refs I've found point to the Devonian for the "greening of the continents". If this is the NewScientist artice that you refer to, it's about coming out of snowball Earth, and they might have just used the same turn of phrase for poetic reasons - don't know how significant the phrase really is in that context. Awickert (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The greening of the continents is most definitely not something that happened back in the Precambrian. Whether one put that down to the Silurian, Devonian or even Carboniferous is a matter of what you put into the expression. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Help!

message: The Climate section of this page says that the increase of temperature of the end of the Devonian might have contributed to the extinction of the stromatoporoids, whereas the Wikipedia page on Stromotoporoidea says: "Stromatoporoidea is an order of colonial aquatic invertebrates that until recently was believed to have gone extinct in the Devonian. Stromatoporoids dominated in the Silurian and Devonian, but fossils have been found in carbonate sequences from the Cambrian to the Oligocene."
Doesn't this mean that the sentence about the extinction of the stromotoporoids should be removed from this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.221.254 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction of the stromatoporoids? 

message: Older British works subdivided the Devonian into Dittonian, Downtonian, Breconian and others.  I created some of these as redirects with possibilities, directing them here.  Some one else has changed the redirect to the History section.  Could we have something added to that section to explain these terms and their relation to the subdivisions in use today.  I regret that I cannot so this, as i am not a geologist, but a search against Dowtonian indicated a number of other articles that used the term, so that it needed to be linked and explained.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old subdivisions 

message: In this article the presence of Climactichnites is used to suggest that arthropods may have been on land as early as the Cambrian, and yet the article for Climactichnites says that the tracks are made by an organism without limbs.  Since arthropods most certainly have limbs this seems like a contradiction that needs fixing.
Troodon311 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climactichnites and arthropods 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Devonian. 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/20060716071827/http://www.stratigraphy.org/gssp.htm to http://www.stratigraphy.org/gssp.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reading the linked article, it does not sound like the spread of life onto dry land in the Devonian qualifies as an "adaptive radiation" in the strict sense. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "adaptive radiation on dry land" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: in the Devonian some 400 million years ago the length of the day is shorter at about 21 hours and there are maybe 417.4 days to the year. Recall the effect of the moon on the rotation of the earth.
while anyone can edit, the problem of stupidity is pervasive  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.235.47 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of the day 

message: "Trilobites, the mollusc-like Brachiopods,"
Not sure where it comes from, Trilobites are definitely Arthropods 5.228.204.162 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilobites are no brachiopods 

message: No mention in article. Equinox ◑ 12:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "[[Gedinnian]]" redirect here?