Talk:Permian

message: For a student, it is very nice to learn the faunal stages in various names. Thanks.
:Better check the external links for updates. Are the faunal stages in this entry the most current ones, you geology heads?Wetman 02:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Discussion

message: "...but the ecosystem was still comparativly unstable. " Unstable ecosystems do not endure. A better paleoecologist than I should vet this statement and make sense out of it. --Wetman 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unstable" ecosystem?

message: I changed this to reflect ICS terminology.  There is no such thing, formally, as Early or Late Permian. --Geologyguy 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't seem to agree with you Fornadan (t) 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there will be different versions and usages.  Put it back if you want, I won't argue (not too big a deal)... but the ICS scale I have does not use them. Cheers Geologyguy 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions 

message: Does anyone know what the sentence:
:On an individual level, perhaps as many as 99.5% of separate organisms died as a result of the event.
is supposed to mean? Does it mean 'individual organisms'? Is so, I would imagine that 100% of individuals alive at that time are now dead. The extinction 'event' could well have taken place over a period of millions of years, couldn't it? Ashmoo 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty unclear, isn't it?  I'd guess it means that for a given species, 99.5% of the members (individual animals) of that species died, even when the entire species did not go extinct.  But, since there is no reliable source, and it is confusing, I would vote to remove the line.  Shall we see if others agree?  Cheers Geologyguy 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not substitute several sourced quotes giving a clear and forcefulimpression of the extent of the damage? I'll add a Notes section;  html will drop the name, title, date, page down into the Notes. --Wetman 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "perhaps as many as 99.5% of separate organisms died" probably means "the total number of organisms was reduced to 0.5% of the pre-extinction level". The alternative meaning "99.5% died without leaving descendants" is probably useless because infant mortality rates among marine invertebrates are huge ene in normal conditions. We need to find some refs to clarify the meaning. Check those used in Permian–Triassic extinction event. Philcha (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS I suspect "organisms" means "multi-celled organisms", as it would be hard to count the pre- and post-extinction numbers of bacteria, especially the extremophiles living deep under the Earth's surface. Philcha (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous sentence

message: From Permian-Triassic extinction event, 6th para"For perspective, a 10-degree increase today would turn southern England into the Sahara Desert". Does anyone know of a citation for this one? or is this personal conjecture? Maybe it would turn southern England into a tropical paradise instead? Methinks remove it... Sansumaria (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm noticing that a lot of these articles contain original research with invented commentary.  It's like when Ronald Reagan said "trees produce more pollution than do cars."  Funny, but not supported by anything.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By comparison to Mars or earth's moon, would not sandy desert "American southwest" conditions characterize pre-biotic landscapes?  Perhaps Sahara-like sand seas characterized all earth continents, in pre-Cambrian eons; and much of those continents, well afterwards?  Perhaps Pangea's vast deserts were then-as-yet-un-plant-colonized terranes, still existing in their Archaic, pre-plant-life, conditions? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sahara Desert? 

message: The section on insects in this article is rather long. A lot of the information there is not about the Permain Period but the earlier Devonian and Carboniferous. It would be better to remove it from this article and put it in the aticles about these periods. Another problem is that the referenced aricle by Wakeling & Ellington is much more explicit about the ancestors of dragonflies than wikipedia:
:Dragonfly ancestors, the Protodonata, are amongst the earliest winged insect fossils, and the dragonfly mode of flight has persisted for 300 million  years (Wootton, 1974; May, 1982). The evolution of the more modern, neopteran, insects has superseded the odonates, and their modern mode of flight with one functional pair of wings can be considered to be evolutionarily more advanced. (Wakeling & Ellington, 1996)
I would suggest that at least the name Protodonata and the age 300 Ma have to be used in the text (probably at Carboniferous); else the sentence remains rather vague and only confuses. Woodwalker (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Insects

message: The first paragraph refers to Perm as a "small town," when it actually has a population of >1,000,000. Did I misunderstand something? Or is this someone joking?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.150.74 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perm 

message: Three ages in the 'Cisuralian epoch' section each claimed to be the "first age of the Permian." I have deleted all three instances. If anyone wishes to label the first age of the Permian as such, make sure only one age has that label. Only one age can come before the rest; if three of the ages where first, that would cause some confusion. JDCAce (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Age of the Permian" 

message: The entry "The warm zone spread in the northern hemisphere, where extensive dry desert appeared. The rock formed at that time were stained red by iron oxides, the result of intense heating by the sun of a surface devoid of vegetation cover." seems somewhat suspect to me, as formation of "red-beds" is probably much more reliant on the red-ox state of the iron containing minerals within the sediments, and can be affected by the geochemistry of groundwater, and formation waters during consolidation and lithifaction and by processes that take place long after the beds were deposited. In any case, I suggest this entry be changed significantly to reflect actual scientific theories regarding formation of extensive oxidized deposits. If the suggestion somehow implies that additional solar heating rapidly accelerated oxidation of the sediments, I would like to see that explained fully.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.199.151 (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Sun Creates Red-Beds??" 

message: I have reverted, twice, massive additions to the article by two editors regarding climate.  Although the information appears solid, the writing reads like it is plagiarized.  It is difficult to determine if it is, given that it might be taken from obscure textbooks or journal articles.  I'm running checks now to determine so.  However, the images, which lack fair use, lead me and one other editor to believe that the whole section should be deleted.  I'm also concerned that the two editors who repeatedly revert are new and focused on this article alone.  That of course is not proof of anything, but it is evidence that there is not a seriousness to these additions.  Please discuss the changes here, or there will be constant reverts of what appears to be improper material.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts of Climate additions 

message: The growth of the reefs in Southern New Mexico, and in West Texas, USA are in an semi-circular arc.
Reefs "Grow" where the have a nutrient source ( Hydrogen Sulfide gas ) seeping up through a 400 mile
long curved fracture in the Earth.  Over the Guadaloupian Epoch, the reef grew upward and forward,
toward the Permian Basin, and grew taller by several thousand feet over an 11 million year period.
For the reef to grow that tall, and to stay in sunlight, the continent must be sinking, or the
water volume on the planet must be increasing, or both may be occurring together.  Reefs are made of
limestone ( calcium carbonate ), but the Permian Basin is full gypsum ( calcium sulfate ), as is the 
low lying areas of eastern New Mexico in the area of the back reef.  The same process that formed the 
reef is the process that destroyed the reef.  When the water table of the planet (sea level) dropped
80 meters ( + 60 to -20 ), the Reef died, but the hydrogen sulfide gas continued to come up through
the reef.  It now combined with the stagnant water in the reef to make Sulfuric Acid.  The Sulfuric Acid
reacts with the Limestone to produce Gypsum, which fills the Permian Basin, and the layers in the
back reef.  The other byproducts of this reaction are carbon dioxide, and water. The carbon dioxide level
should have spiked after the drop in ocean levels.   All the "unpleasant for life" climate changes should
occur following the drop in ocean levels.  These include, and Acid Ocean , High Temperature, release of
green house gases, and a prolonged recovery period before new life forms were re-established.
This sequence of event demonstrates cause and effect for production of limestone, and Gypsum.
It gives a reason as to why the extinction band width on the graph is wide rather than narrow.
Whether the Ocean levels dropped slowly or quickly is not as important as the fact that it
dropped so far ( 80 meters ). The result was extinction in the Oceans and on the Land.
Michael W. Clark, Golden, Colorado, USA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction must have a cause and effect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Permian. 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/20160306140004/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stratigraphy.org/gssp.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) 21:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Upper Permian and Lower Permian currently forward to this page, but as far as I can see, these terms aren't mentioned at all here. Amaurea (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Upper Permian and Lower Permian seem to be the definitions used by Russian geologists. This is described at :ru:Пермский период and can be seen in the :File:Permian ICS & Russia.svg (both in Russian). On the image, notation used by ICS is on the left, modern Russian notation in the middle, and old Russian notation on the right. In short, old Russian notation included two top level series/epochs: upper and lower. Since 2006, three series are used: Tatarian (also known as Upper), Biarmian (aka Middle), and Cisuralian (aka Lower).  —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper and lower permian 

message: The current text of the Marine biota section of this article currently states "The majority of Permian brachiopods belong to the extinct order Productida, accounting for 45-70% of all species.". I think that this sentence requires clarification or correction or removal because (1) 50% or less is not a majority; (2) the scope of "all species" is unclear - does it mean "all marine species" or "all brachiopod species"? (I suspect the latter); (3) the geographic scope is unclear: the article implies the whole Earth but I think the cited source probably implies only South China. 
The cited source (Zhang and He (2008), about Productid brachiopods in the South China) states "Productida is the most dominant brachiopod group in the Permian, accounting for 45%―70% of all species.". Their statement has two supporting citations, both of which are also about South China. The evidence suggests to me that the findings of these sources probably cannot be extrapolated to whole Earth, as has been done in the current text of this Wikipedia article. (To extrapolate to the whole Earth may be novel synthesis, which is not allowed in Wikipedia). GeoWriter (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to imply that they represented the dominant group of Permian brachiopods, not necessarily the outright majority, so I've changed the text. I'm fairly sure that all brachipods are marine or that at least freshwater brachiopod diversity is negligible. The fact that Productida makes up a plurality of Permian brachiopods is verified by The Evolution of Brachiopoda (see fig 8). I don't see any reason to doubt the claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for changing the article's text to "The extinct order Productida represented the predominant group of Permian brachiopods, accounting for 45-70% of all species" and supplying the link to the graph in the review article. I think the current South China source reference that you have cited is still a problem because you have not responded to my comments about the geographic scope of the South China source(s). I think the figure 8 graph that you mention is a better source anyway because its geographic scope is clearly global. Therefore, I suggest that the article text should be changed to something like "The extinct order Productida was the predominant group of Permian brachiopods, accounting for up to about half of all Permian brachiopod genera". A citation for the figure 8 graph in "The Evolution of Brachiopoda" should replace the South China source (which becomes unnecessary, thus avoiding possible misinterpretation of the South China source).  GeoWriter (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Productida 

message: Conodonts are described in the marine invertebrate section. They are jawless fish. 2603:6011:4102:2478:D07F:53C3:19D4:AD5A (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reporting this. I have changed the section heading from "Marine invertebrates" to "Marine biota". GeoWriter (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved conodonts to the fish section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conodonts aren't invertebrates