Talk:Paleobotany

message: 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!
* http://iop.biodiversity.org.uk/
** In Paleobotany on Mon Jul 17 16:26:40 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
** In Paleobotany on Thu Jul 27 00:59:49 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
----maru   (talk)  contribs 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Since there is no single form for a "plant fossil" it seems reasonable to merge information about such fossils into the article on Paleobotany, which is the science that deals with plant fossils.  Much of the information about the interpretation of such fossils would otherwise be duplicated between the articles. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. I agree, good idea. Aelwyn 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I am attempting to de-orphan the above article. I have added a link to it in the See Also section. However, it would probably be better if someone more knowledgeable than I work a link into the text. Or perhaps merge the article in completely. Thanks. --Sophitessa (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[Cryptospores]] 

message: "One of the most spectacular of plant fossils is petrified wood."
This is very subjective and should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.11.158 (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjective statement

message: I have several Eocene fossil leaves that I can provide images for if it would be worthwhile adding to this page? Sladew (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eocene leaf and (sea?)grass images available 

message: The nomenclature rules for plant fossils as expressed in this article are out of date.  Form taxa disappeared from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature over 10 years ago (with the 2000 'St Louis Code').  There has since been some dispute as to the best way forward, but a recent review in the journal Taxon has argued that they should be referred to as fossil-taxa.  I know something of the history of this issue and could re-word this section.  However as it would require a fairly substantial rewrite, I thought it advisable to post this suggestion before doing anything.  CCleal (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great to get an rewrite of the section with overviews of the current thinking and proposals!--Kevmin § 21:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic nomenclature 

message: The discussion in this section is of interest to taxonomists, but rather too detailed, in my view, for the article, which is of more general interest. I would be in favour of having a summary here and forking the content to a separate article. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were significantly more content in this article, I would agree on a split (not a WP:FORK).  However, this is a tiny article at present, so I'd rather it stay together for the time being.  This is one of the articles I'd like to expand greatly, but don't have the time to do it well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think more technical detail re the ICBN is not appropriate (there are enough articles on botanical nomenclature!). However, I think some more examples would be helpful, e.g. examples of naming spores when the sporophyte is unknown; separate names for sporophytes & gametophytes before they are linked; separate names for parts of plants not initially found associated; etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil-taxa

message: Do we really need the lists in Paleobotany#Fossil_groups_of_plants and Paleobotany#Notable_Paleobotanists? At the moment they are very random; it would be easy to add 20-30 extra to each, but what would be the point? How would entries be chosen for either list? What are the criteria? Personally I'm in favour of removing both lists. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The random list under fossil groups of plants can probably go, but I'd keep the list of notable paleobotanists. Abyssal (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: They could be separated as list articles, rather than included here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that the random list under fossil groups of plants should probably go. I'm in favor of retaining the list of notable paleobotanists as a separate page and expanding it. Georgialh (talk). 02:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there must be sources that establish that these are indeed "notable". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paleobotany. 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/20051025141647/http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/ebot.html to http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/ebot.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312151629/http://paleobotany.bio.ku.edu/BiblioOfPaleo.htm to http://paleobotany.bio.ku.edu/BiblioOfPaleo.htm
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) 15:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: — Assignment last updated by WillowRainier (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Current Topics in Earth and Environmental Sciences

message: — Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024