Talk:Conodont

message: Is the animal, sensu stricto, called a conodont? I'm pretty sure that this is sloppy language which should not be endorsed by an encyclopaedia - but I may well be incorrect.
Verisimilus T 15:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that. Verisimilus T 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not had chance to have a proper look at this, but it appears to favour the animal being a conodont, and the "teeth" "Conodont elements". Worth following up (and incorporating)? Verisimilus T 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that Conodonta, Paraconodonta and Euconodonta, all clades of animals, are all re-directed to Conodont. So the article needs to cover the animal and the teeth, or different articles need to be written for Conodonta etc. Bondegezou 10:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not my understanding of the current situation (while it obviously was the case in the past).  Do you have an up-to-date reference stating this?  I suspect that there may not even be an agreed standard... Verisimilus T 10:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to the animal 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that the color of a conodont indicates the temperature the surrounding rock was cooked at?  This also indicates the quality of any surrounding oil because oil must be cooked in a very small heat range.
I do believe this fact is attributed to Anita Harris of the USGS. 64.74.212.1 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link to conodont alteration index in the section 'Conodont teeth fossils' William Avery (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in Geology

message: A new study has shed light on the various types of teeth in conodonts. Tomorrow, Texas Tech Graduate Student Nicole Peavey is to present her results with the Geological Society of America's annual conference in Denver. Just something to keep an eye on for now; it may be worthwile to have a look at any publications which arise from this study.  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)  23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental functions 

message: I hope everybody's happy with the tree. Making a tree for the conodonts, as it turns out, is a real pain in the backside. My main source for this was  Sweet and Donoghue's 2001 paper, which gives the conodonts in context, although is not based on rigourous cladistic analysis, only on Sweet's hypotheses in other papers. However, the part of the tree dealing with the euconodonts was largely rewritten after Donoghue's 2007 paper, which did do a proper analysis, but only on the complex conodonts (the prioniodontidae). This tree, from what I gather from the paper, reshuffled many of the taxa into different families and created many new orders. Obviously its relatively new, so could change, but I'm fairly happy with the method so its up.
Also, I know that recent papers are saying that the lampreys and the hagfish belong together as Cyclostomes but I have included them here as separate crown taxa - I mentionnned this in a footnote. || instantn00dle 17:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree 

message: I appreciate the pictures of the conodont "teeth", and the drawing of the animal; but there must be a photograph and/or drawing of the fossilized body(or maybe partial fossils) somewhere, which would add a lot to this article. Mcswell (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture(s)

message: Any updates on how old the oldest conodonts are? I know there have been some contentious dates, but latest Ediacaran to Lower Cambrian seem to be coming up more often. For example here and here A lot of research papers, but I'm reluctant to go with that until the Encyclopedia Britannica people say it's for real. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Amazing new image brought to my attention by Pharyngula. Link here. Anyone with experience able to see if we can use the image here? Blue Danube (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New artist's interpretation