Talk:Silurian

message: Since this article is about Silurian time, I changed the subdivision descriptions to reflect this - epoch rather than series (which refers to the rocks) and early/late rather than lower/upper for the same reason. This is also more consistent with other geological time period articles.--Geologyguy 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article as follows:
I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footer, and that other extraenous information, such as previous eras, can be supplied where important, by links from the text.  I removed the geotimebox and left the footer, pending discussion.  --Bejnar 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:AMK152|AMK152's]] Geotimeboxes

message: I don't doubt that Přídolí is the proper spelling in Czech of the place after which the Pridoli epoch is named.  But can anyone provide a substantial reference for calling the "Pridoli epoch" the "Přídolí epoch" in English?  There is plenty of evidence for "Pridoli epoch" in English, see, e.g. The Pridoli, GeoWhen Database, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We (Wikipedia) have had pretty good consensus to use the ICS nomenclature... but they are pretty inconsistent in this case! Under the title "GSSP for the Ludlow – Pridolí Boundary" (accent on final i), they refer to the "Pridoli Series" (no marks at all) but use diacritics on the location names such as Požáry Section, then in what appears to be the primary reference for the stage, cite "Přídoli Series" (marks on r and initial i but not final i).  I'd say we're on our own on this one, whatever our consensus decides.  Personally, I tend to appreciate proper non-English accents and so on in proper names used in English, though I would not get very upset if they were not used. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USGS appears, and it may only be an appearance, to use Pridoli, without diacritics. "Divisions of Geologic Time—Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units" USGS and "Strategraphis Nomenclature and Description" Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey But those usages are in tables. --Bejnar (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pridoli epoch" vs. "Přídolí epoch"

message: Though they are intended to be, I'm not at all sure that the links within the 'subdivisions' section to the Ludlow, Wenlock and Llandovery groups are helpful to the reader as these are simply former divisions made by British geologists and do not correspond directly with the epochs which this section primarily deals with. The linked pages comprise material from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 edition, much of the content of which has been superceded in any case. Overall the unsuspecting, non-expert reader is more likely to be misled. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Groups 

message: Since the source image and corresponding text for Ref. 1 is in German, it's inclusion in the English version of Wikipedia is a hindrance to understanding. Someone modified and translated a version into English (see thumbnail), which I propose should replace the link, but I can't seem to figure out to change the figure.        Animalparty (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to English version of graph 1? 

message: This is a group that has been overlooked in the article. For example, Prototaxites, which was probably a fungus or lichen, would have been the tallest organism of the late Silurian. In addition, since fossilized hyphae and spores of other terrestrial fungi recovered from Wisconsin date as early as Ordovician (460 Ma), and have probably colonized land considerably earlier than plants, the statement "Life also began to appear on land..." in the introduction to the article, is incorrect. Belsavis (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrestrial fungi 

message: The following sentence appears in this section:
The first bony fish, the Osteichthyes, appeared, represented by the Acanthodians covered with bony scales; fish reached considerable diversity and developed movable jaws, adapted from the supports of the front two or three gill arches.
Acanthodians are the sister clade of Osteichthyes (also known as "bony fishes"). Many non-bony fishes had bones. Placoderms and Acanthodians for example. Bony fish were named after a new kind of bone called endochondral bone, as opposed to the old kind which was dermal bone. Movable jaws are a completely different subject: that would be the first jawed fishes, the oldest known variety of which is placoderms. I think jawed fishes are thought to have originated about 460 mya, Osteichthyes (bony fish) circa 420 mya. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora and fauna 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Silurian. 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/20120309135815/http://palaeos.com/paleozoic/silurian/silurian.htm to http://palaeos.com/paleozoic/silurian/silurian.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824004451/http://tapestry.usgs.gov/ages/silurdevon.html to http://tapestry.usgs.gov/ages/silurdevon.html
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) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In this section, the following sentence occurs (footnotes removed):
The final link goes to the same page as "Lau event". Could someone please tell me what to do here?--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a mistake. The Lau event was the late Silurian extinction. I have deleted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found self-contradictory sentence or links therein 

message: has added 'citation needed' to the north American sub-stages. So far as I can see there are countless different regional sub-stages and Cayugan appears to be part of a different series to the other ones listed as north American. See . There is no reason to just show these three regions and I suggest deleting the regional sub-section. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the listed regional stages are non-existent red links and are very likely to stay that way. I support deletion of the regional stages section. If, in the future, an editor wants to add significant regional content they could still do so, but I think that the current list of some regional stages (none of which are described) is unhelpful. It could also mislead readers to incorrectly assume that it is a complete list. Also, the regional section occupies as much of the article as the global stages, which I think is undue weight. GeoWriter (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds right to me. I had a hard time finding any source that even mentioned any of the North American stages, except the Cayugan -- which apparently is not even the right series, as Dudley Miles points out. Even for the non-North American sections, the sources seem pretty obscure. The inclusion of two Baltic regional stage sets and none from anywhere else but North America is decidedly unbalanced. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional stages 

message: The start and end errors of the subdivisions are clearly wrong, i.e the end error for one subdivision is not the same as the start error for the following subdivision.
The reason for this appears to be that the templates for start and end error work from the page name of the article, instead of from the name of the subdivision.
Therefore either the figures need to be input manually, or else these templates need to be corrected!---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it is obviously wrong using Template:Period span for an epoch, and there is no Template:Epoch span, so as you say the figures need to be added manually - and also referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Have amended the section accordingly, converting it into a table for ease of reference. However this seems to be a more widespread problem: for example look at the list of subdivisions in the Devonian article: it's confused, to say the least. I think someone familiar with the articles should go through and look at all of these articles in a systematic way, perhaps writing new templates as necessary.---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period start and end errors are wrong 

message: The article claims that Pneumodesmus is of mid-Silurian age (which is not a correct term, but never mind), but the article on this animal clearly shows this age to be mistaken, the Cowie Harbour Fish bed it was found in have been securely dated as 414 MYA (thanks to zircons founs in beds above and below). So this date seems very solid. It is not clear to me whether any other good fossils are know from older sediments. If not then this information is wrong. 
Since it was first thought to be securely dated as 428 MYA, based on spores found in this bed, one might wonder how good these spore dates are and what other conclusions have been based on them that might be wrong, now these spores have been shown to be found in early Devonian deposits. Codiv (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest millipedes is contested 

message: I thought it would be useful to link this term for the lay reader but could not find an article on the topic. Any suggestions for a suitable link or a volunteer to write an article or section on isotopic excursions somewhere appropriate?  thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotopic excursions within 'Perturbation' 

message: has added "The Silurian period has been viewed by some palaeontologists as an extended recovery interval following the Late Ordovician mass extinction, which interrupted the cascading increase in biodiversity that had continuously gone on throughout the Cambrian and most of the Ordovician." The source at  says "The Early Ordovician marks a slightly increased base level followed by a distinct Mid Ordovician rise in richness—the GOBE—peaking in the early Late Ordovician. This is followed by a prolonged fall in richness levels, corresponding to the end Ordovician mass extinctions. The early Silurian is characterized by a weak rebound, whereafter richness levels fall yet again later in the period." I read this as a failure to recover rather than an extended recovery. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit