Talk:Mount Aniakchak

message: Available here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of plant species 

message: This source may offer information on a species here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cave-adapted species 

message: If there is a final version of this report (website says it's a draft) it could be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report draft 

message: Didn't include any contemporary newspapers, but if folks want them here is a list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary newspapers 

message: :
The cited source is from 2007, which in turn cites anthropologist David Damas in a document from 1984 for the claim on p. 23. (Clark 1984).  This means that the dating is at least 40 years old, but likely much older than that.  My understanding, and I could very well be wrong in this instance, is that within the last ten years, all of these settlement dates have been pushed back much farther in time and a lot of the history has been or is being completely rewritten.  At first glance, based on recent sources, 7,000 years sounds far too recent.  Our article on Paleo-Indians indicates that the dating fluctuates wildly, and I've seen dates as old as 30,000 years in other works, although it isn't clear how that applies to Alaska in particular. It might be instructive to look into this at a future date and see if there are any newer sources on the settlement dates. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that Alaskan population history is not my specialty. But it wouldn't surprise me if that date has been superseded since then; consider that Monte Verde goes back to about 14,500 years ago and the people there must have at some point passed through Alaska. It's just that I can't find a source on the Alaskan Peninsula from a quick read. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  I was reminded of the recent dating controversy of White Sands fossil footprints, which skeptics tried, but failed, to shoot down.  It's now thought to be dated to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago.  I also read something similar about other finds in California.  My understanding is that if you tried to show this, in let's say 1984, people would have laughed you out of the room.  I'm just saying there's been a sea change in the acceptance of older dates in North America over time.  Another point that I've observed, is that even though there's always going to be discussion about the accuracy of dates, my reading of older textbooks on this subject tells me that scientists in the 20th century were far more hesitant to think in terms of deeper time than they are today. I recall reading about at least one famous professor at the University of California, Berkeley in the early part of that century who held the study of Ohlone people back for decades due to his control of the department and influence.  Sometimes the greatest threats to scientific advancement and understanding come from within because people are entirely unwilling to change their beliefs when new evidence arises. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement dates 

message: :
Is this true, though?  Ecologists were surprised to discover how fast vegetation grew back in the wasteland left behind by the Mount St. Helens eruption.  And on the Big Island of Hawaii and elsewhere, it's remarkable how fast plant life gets going provided there is wind dispersal and rain. Something tells me this is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought and deeper reflection, a century of slow plant growth seems like a reasonable statement given the magnitude of the destruction. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetation growth 

message: Fantastic work on this! One thing, and I don't mean to be intrusive. I would suggest removing the bullet points in the hazards section. It's a bit listy. This otherwise looks comprehensive enough for FAC at some point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, thing is that it's a list of different hazards. I don't like passing off a list as a not-a-list, it reads off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet points