Talk:Hell Creek Formation

message: The uppermost limit of the Hell Creek Foundation is described in conflicting ways in the article: it is stated to be "terminating at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary" and also that the famous iridium layer "occurs as a discontinuous but distinct thin marker bedding within the Formation, near its uppermost strata." I'm all but sure the latter statement is the correct one. --Wetman (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but what do we make of of the claim, both in the first paragraph and the infobox, that the formation terminates at 65.5 Ma? That's consistent with the Ir layer being within the formation, since  have shown that the layer is  million years old and therefore lies below 65.5 million-year-old Paleocene rock. Is there solid evidence that the formation terminates at 65.5 Ma?  If not, I propose that we change the "Stratigraphic range" in the infobox to Maastrichtian – Danian. Peter Brown (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uppermost Hell Creek Foundation 

message: As it has been suggested as recently as 2013 (By Larson & Currie) that Troodont teeth from Hell Creek are referable to Pectinodon, this should be mentioned.142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After the cleanup of Dubious/Synonymous/Falsely Reported taxa I think putting it in has Even more prescendance.Capra walie (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pectinodon 

message: Why is there no mention of O. elgans (Yes, it is obvious that it isn't an Ornithomimid, but there are four potential candidates for actual genus (Elmisaurus, Anzu, Chirostenotes.)).142.176.114.76 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could have sworn this used to be here at some point, must have been trimmed accidentally in some past edit. Will re-add. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, added back with disclaimer. Note that "E. elegans" in the Hell Creek is based on the small pes MOR 752. The holotype is from the DPF, at least 10 Ma earlier. The odds of this pes actually being the same species as E. elegans is minuscule. Watch for it to either get a new species name or referred to Anzu. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested at least once that it could be a separate species within Anzu: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/anzu-is-here/#more-3519 142.176.114.76 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  O. elegans 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Hell Creek Formation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "breithaupt1997":
From Dinosaur: 
From Ankylosaurus: Breithaupt, B.H. (1997). "Lance Formation".  In: 
Reference named "eberth1997":
From Gorgosaurus: 
From Albertosaurus: 
From Ankylosaurus: Eberth, D.A. (1997). "Edmonton Group". In: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Hell Creek Formation]] 

message: A lot of the entries have an overload of pictures, many of which are unnecessary life reconstructions, and a lot probably aren't for free-use. PLEASE cut down on the pictures.Capra walie (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the picture overload include using pictures of often extremely distant living relatives count toward the overload, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, I decided to be bold and remove all of the pictures that either did not depict the closest living relatives or were blatantly original research-picked to be pretty.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these pictures are also of species with very tentative presence in this formation and misleadingly use well-known specimens from other formations (especially the various Dinosaur Park fauna). I would suggest if fossil specimen photos are used, even they be limited to specimens that are actually geologically associated with the page's topic formation. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Since it is found at the site, it would be extremely and immensely appropriate to use here.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture overload 

message: I'm fairly sure the part of the article that says the troodontid teeth found in Hell Creek can be attributed to Acheroraptor is false. While reports of Dromaeosaurus and Saurornitholestes teeth  are most likely those of Acheroraptor, I'm fairly certain that teeth that can be definitely attributed to troodontids have been found in the formation. Can someone please change the article, or correct me if I'm mistaken? Thanks in advance.--24.141.100.19 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't directly state it, but it heavily implies it. Either way, the Troodontid teeth aren't mentioned anywhere else here, but they should be. I again propose using Pectinodon for this purpose.Capra walie (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: A minor error

message: For whatever reason, when the excessive imaging was removed, all the intermediate, dubious, synonomous, etc, taxa were removed from the list. The list is far more helpful if they are included, and I see no reason why they aren't. They're still present on all the other major formation pages (Morrison, Dinosaur Park, Yixian, etc.), so I don't know why they were removed. Either way I think they should be put back in place. Help and/or clarification, anyone?Capra walie (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I had kept "Nanotyrannus" as a Tyrannosaurus species, as that seems to be the most popular theory; but it looks like somebody made it back into it's own genus on the list. The other genera, though, I'm unsure of why those were removed, myself. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A dubious removal 

message: We cleaned up a lot of the images, but there's still more then necessary. For the most part, this is ok. However, for no reason whatsoever do we need four pictures of T. rex mounts. Lusotitan (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More picture stuff 

message: I checked both of the sources cited for the presence of O. velox in the HC. Neither of them support its inclusion! If there is another source that can warrant the inclusion of O. velox here, please add it; otherwise, please remove O. velox from this list.
Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's not supported from this formation. It looks like Osborn originally placed some fragmentary AMNH material in this species but it's now regarded as indeterminate and probably belongs to S. sedens or "Orcomimus". Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ornithomimus velox? 

message: Nilssonia is described on the page as the Hell Creek formation's only cycad, and cycads are mentioned at other points on the page. However, the article on Nilssonia describes it as a bennettitalean, NOT a cycad, and the references on that page are pretty clear about its identity. But other sources I've seen around (eg. FossilWorks) identify Nilssonia as a proper cycad. Which is it? If it is genuinely the only cycad reported from the Hell Creek Fm., but is not actually a cycad, wouldn't that mean that there aren't any cycads in the Hell Creek Formation after all? Think that something needs to be updated, but since not all sources say the same thing, not sure what that update should be. 209.136.39.130 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably an error introduced by this one anonymous editor who was hellbent on screwing up this list with nonsensical original research identifications last year.  For now, I just swapped "cycad" with "cycadeoid," while linking to bennettitales.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nilssonia - not a cycad? 

message: The article briefly mentions that marine reptiles including plesiosaurs and mosasaurs have been discovered here, but makes no mention of them in the list of vertebrate discoveries.Wildernest42 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine reptiles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hell Creek Formation. 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/20110717174743/http://www.childrensmuseum.org/themuseum/dinosphere/draco_rex/dracorex_hogwartsia.pdf to http://www.childrensmuseum.org/themuseum/dinosphere/draco_rex/dracorex_hogwartsia.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.scn.org/~bh162/index.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) 17:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most sources say Texas but they then go on to depict it being in the hell creek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 
:A neck vertebra of a large azhdarchid is known, but, it is unknown whether or not it is Quetzalcoatlus' or not.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Quetzalcoatlus live in Hell creek? 

message: Merging 2 sections on this new topic for ease. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly near Bowman, North Dakota.  It's likely that the exact location hasn't yet been publicly disclosed.  The PNAS paper goes up on Monday and I'm sure all the dino buffs are waiting on the edges of their seats right now. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanis

message: where is the site of this find located in the hell creek area  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.110.36 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly near Bowman, North Dakota.  It's likely that the exact location hasn't yet been publicly disclosed.  The PNAS paper goes up on Monday and I'm sure all the dino buffs are waiting on the edges of their seats right now. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-day-the-dinosaurs-died? 

message: "A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota"
Robert A. DePalma, Jan Smit, David A. Burnham, Klaudia Kuiper, Phillip L. Manning, Anton Oleinik, Peter Larson, Florentin J. Maurrasse, Johan Vellekoop, Mark A. Richards, Loren Gurche, and Walter Alvarez
The paper is up: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/27/1817407116
This is the one that has been all over the news because it supposedly shows fossils of fish killed directly by tektite fallout from the Chicxulub impact.  There is a doi but it doesn't work yet. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Palma et al paper 

message: See Tanis (fossil site), in creation. 
Enjoy! FT2 (Talk | email) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanis site article

message: :Cross posted at Talk:Tanis (fossil site) - please respond here to keep it central
Can anyone help with a suitably licensed version of an academically sound map showing the extent of the Inland Sea and dry land, at the time of impact, and ideally, an indication of the location of present-day North Dakota overlaid (the exact location of the site itself is undisclosed)?
The problem is, that some maps show a large seaway, some show an inland sea that's effectively as closed extension to the Gulf, and some state that by 65.7MYa the sea had mostly dried out and ceased to exist. Many maps also seem to be generic rough outlines, or contradict in their details, and have little if any sign of being paleontologically/geologically well-founded.
It would be very helpful to present some reasonably reliable idea of land levels and coastlines at the time of the KPg impact, so that a reader can see which areas would have been underwater, and which areas, although dry land, would have been low lying and funneled impact waves upward across the region recently below water.
From maps, it looks like the contours might have focussed waves in a 90 degree arc, into the comparatively narrow remaining inland sea, but that's speculative. 
Any help resolving the actual terrain so far as it pertains to the time of impact and water/ground levels between Chixculub and Hells Creek (or anything bearing on this) would be very appreciated.
Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Try figure 1 from this paper, based on Blakey 2011. Mikenorton (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Also check out this on Ron Blakey's website. Mikenorton (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

text: But also see here for yet another Ron Blakey map for the end of the Maastrichtian, which helpfully is the same map as the Figure 1 above, but covers a lot more. Mikenorton (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Mikenorton - The first is helpful but doesn't cover the area, and more focused on geology than terrain/depth. Anything else you can think of? The second (deeptimemaps) is heavily copyright blocked - see their FAQ, very commercialized, tightly limited reuse. No chance. The third, however is perfect - right timing (75 + 65 Mya) and full CC license. Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 21:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What the second map shows is that Ron Blakey has maybe changed his ideas on the shape of the Inland Sea, but at least you have a map that you can use. Mikenorton (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and thanks! Uploaded to Commons:  :File:North america 65mya.png and :File:North america 75mya.png FT2 (Talk | email) 09:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleological map request - map relating Hells Creek to the Western Inland Sea area at the time of impact? 

message: IS there any evidence?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richardoestesia in hell creek? 

message: Is the existence of the indeterminate pterosaur from South Dakota substantiated? The only source for its existence is a fossil and cast supplier's website,  not any sort of peer-reviewed article. I think we need to track down a better source before we can include this pterosaur on Hell Creek's faunal lineup. Zach Varmitech (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of indeterminate pterosaur 

message: I have changed the phrase "Many animals including dinosaurs lived in the Hell Creek Formation" to "Remains of many animals including dinosaurs was found in the Hell Creek Formation". Dinosaurs and other animals did not lived "in" geological formations (sedimentary rock bodies), but open air. Animals were able to live in nearby areas, they did not even have to live necesarely in the same sedimentary environment in which their fossils were found. Was a pterosaur flying inside a rock? Or was a herd of Edmontosaurus grazing inside the rock? We find fossils, and these remains reach the lithosphere through sometimes complex and long processes and may come from animals that lived several kilometers from the place where their remains were buried. This is a frequent mistake in articles about geological formations, please check. --PePeEfe (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I add, the taxa identified in a fossil site did not even have to share habitat, the grouping could have been post-mortem. The answer must be provided by sedimentological and taphonomic studies, not just lists of taxa. --PePeEfe (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've further tweaked the section. Mikenorton (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals did not lived in geological formations