Talk:Ammonoidea

message: Added text from article I originally wrote in 1998 and published it on the Web....
Dlloyd 20:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening heading

message: Could use some more clarification on the aptychus/anaptychus. I've also heard the term diaptycus used. There is now also an article at aptychus. --DanielCD 20:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aptychus

message: I noticed someone put the term ammolite in the sentence on irridescent ammonites. It should be noted, however, that ammolite and the irridescent ammonites are not quite the same thing. I'll have to look into it again and refresh my memory before I make any changes though. If anyone can clarify the difference, please do. --DanielCD 14:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irridescence

message: Ammon, as well as being the name of an Egyptian god (also spelt "Amun", "Amon", "Amen" and "Imanand"), is the name of a people living along the Jordan river in biblical times.  Unfortunately the link 'Ammon' takes us to the Jordanian peoples, not the Egyption god.  I am not sufficiently trained in editing Wikipedia pages to fix this.  I think the 'Ammon' Page needs a Disambiguation Page. —This unsigned comment was added by 139.168.9.181 (talk • contribs) .
:I'll try to look at it today sometime. --DanielCD 13:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disambig already existed. All that was needed was a  at the top of Ammon. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammon 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. 
*There is a complete lack of inline cites that needs to be addressed.
*The cites that do exist need to be converted to  format.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps (on hold)

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of 
October 25, 
2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. 
*Currently, in-line cites do not meet GA standards. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Delist 

message: The page talks of this being only acknowledged "in relatively recent years". As I was taught about sexual dimorphism in Ammonites during an undergraduate geology course in 1971-1974 at Cambridge, with clear examples of extreme cases being presented, it is only in geological terms that it can be called "relatively recent"! --APRCooper (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Dimorphism 

message: I re-did the Ammonite article as the proper taxon, Ammonoidea, with a separate shorter article defining Ammonite with links in both directions. For readers simply wanting to know what an ammonite it, it's there. For those with a more in depth understanding of paleontology, Ammmonoidea should be there. This brings up another issue.  
If wikipedia article are written for the average reader (lowest common denominator) then let's have a rule , write to the 4th grade level.  If they are to have in depth, encyclopedic value then certain protocals should be followed. One is that any article requiring a taxobox be written under the the name of a valid taxon.
Regards John talk
p.s.Snek01's idea on a fix isn't a bad one at that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.H.McDonnell (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Property and Scientifically Ammonoidea

message: Wait, why does this page link to pokemon? Yeah, let's say in an absurd fashion they look alike, but still... pokemon?! 92.81.147.203 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon @_@ 

message: What about the supposed Lower Paleogene ammonites from Denmark? They should at least be mentioned. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they probably should, according to this source. I will add it to the fossil range. JRLivesey 19:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lower Paleogene?

message: I must be missing something. What is the evidence for: "Starting from the late Silurian, ammonoids ..."? My experience is that the first ammonoids are Devonian. Is there a reference for Silurian ammonoids? Wilson44691 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think you are missing something, or at least not a right thing. the refrence which i have used in Arabic Wikipedia article says that ammonites have evolved in the mid-Devonian period from the order of bactritida --aad_Dira (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silurian ammonoids? 

message: I'm assuming this is useful and should be incorporated into the article at some point? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammonite diet 

message: These two sections basically mean the same thing. I'm rather annoyed that they were added individually. Although I'm uncertain of the factual merit of the inclusion of either one, seeing that they are least referenced, I'm going to do the minor legwork of combining them into one subsection. Theinsomniac4life (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-mineralized anatomy/soft parts 

message: I think someone should explain the differences between ammonites and nautiloids. I mean they do look similar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.161.130 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most reliable difference is that ammonites had a siphuncle (connecting tube) running around the edge of their shells (the outside edge of each whorl) whereas nautiloids have a siphuncle running through the centre. Later ammonites developed extremely complex foldings in their septa and particularly complex foldings where the septa met the shell wall (sutures). There is a good page here: http://www.palaeocast.com/episode-17-ammonoid-evolution-and-ecology/#.U3-CiiiTJD4 which describes this.Orbitalforam (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammonites, nautiloids and gastropods 

message: No mention of shell chemistry in the section describing the shell, nor either at Nautiloid - is anyone competent out there willing to add a paragraph? The fact that aragonite and calcite have different solubility is often so important in taphonomy of cephalopods that I think it should be detailed here. 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  shell chemistry 

message: The lack of citations has been noted... but the following paragraph makes little logical sense and should be cited or removed: "One reason given for their demise is the Cretaceous ammonites, being closely related to coleoids, had a similar reproductive strategy in which huge numbers of eggs were laid in a single batch at the end of the lifespan. These, along with juvenile ammonites, are thought to have been part of the plankton at the surface of the ocean, where they were killed off by the effects of an impact. Nautiloids, exemplified by modern nautiluses, are conversely thought to have had a reproductive strategy in which eggs were laid in smaller batches many times during the lifespan, and on the sea floor well away from any direct effects of such a bolide strike, and thus survived." The paragraph implies that because nautiloids had a different reproductive strategy to ammonites the nautiloids survived the extinction that knocked off ammonites. But the logical conclusion should be that coleoids (which are used as an example of what ammonite reproduction was probably like) should also have suffered and gone extinct... only they didn't. Octopus, cuttlefish and squid did perfectly fine. Unless I'm missing something obvious, this argument doesn't seem to hold together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.139.74.231 (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction section needs work... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ammonoidea. 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/20050307100033/http://is.dal.ca:80/~ceph/TCP/evolution.html to http://is.dal.ca/~ceph/TCP/evolution.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405181106/http://is.dal.ca:80/%7Eceph/TCP/ammonage.html to http://is.dal.ca/%7Eceph/TCP/ammonage.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201091554/http://www.cretaceousfossils.com:80/invertebrates/ammonites/ammonites_index.htm to http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/invertebrates/ammonites/ammonites_index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ammonoidea. 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/20071111061251/http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2259490.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2259490.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://is.dal.ca/~ceph/TCP/evolution.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://is.dal.ca/~ceph/TCP/ammonage.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/invertebrates/ammonites/ammonites_index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509085058/http://www.wyodino.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/BittenAmmonite.pdf to http://www.wyodino.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/BittenAmmonite.pdf
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) 03:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ammonoidea. 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/20070502202153/http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_232_Ammonites.htm to http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_232_Ammonites.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) 11:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone tell me, if the genus Goliathoceras exist? I have this 2 pictures: :File:Pu - Goliathoceras sp. - 1.jpg and :File:Pu - Goliathoceras sp. - 2.jpg with the Unidentified Goliathoceras sp. in the Rotunda Museum, Scarborough, England. description. But neither here and neither on Google, I don't find any information about it. Meanwhile perhaps became a synonym of another genusname? DenesFeri (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goliathoceras 

message: There needs to be a non technical section with an explanation with regards ammonites for those with a general interest. 2A00:23C6:95B5:DD01:E48C:6363:5C69:52A (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear! Hear! The reliance on jargon in the scientific, medical, and engineering topics has always been a pet peeve of mine. It takes skill to boil down jargon into understandable English and many Wikipedia editors seem to evade that skill. >_< All the best, Wordreader (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not every one who reads this page is an expert. 

message: Hey, , I noticed you recently removed a paragraph on the topic. I don't see how the focus was undue, as it was a single paragraph of a fairly long article, nor how it was "speculation", as it was backed up by a scholarly source. In any case, I can't find a source of similar quality that attempts to refute these claims; in fact, another scientific article acknowledges that they may be correct. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added mention to them. However, I don't think we need an entire article dedicated to the concept of Paleocene ammonites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I would be willing to support it if you felt like bringing the mentioned article up at AfD. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal of Paleocene ammonite information 

message: This image lacks clarifying context for non experts to understand what they are looking at. The terms internal, lateral, external, etc are undefined. 2605:A601:A0A9:3300:15D6:4E3A:A0DF:2C (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Septa and suture patterns image  

message: For all you ammonite fans, on the Prehistoric Planet 2 documentary series, the "Oceans" episode (AppleTV+), they provide a lot of information about various species of these critters, from babies to adults. Such a good program. Thanks for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Prehistoric Planet 2'': "Oceans"