|WikiProject Geology / Periods||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|To-do list for Ediacaran:|
Is it called Ediacaran (-ran) or Ediacarian (-rian) ?
Google has 1590 pages with `ediacaran' vs. only 228 with `ediacarian'. Does anybody know for sure the correct name ?
I suppose it depends on how you think the Ediacara/Ediacaria Hills are spelled. Sort of like Chickamauga vs Chikamauga. Ediacar(i)a is not an English word, so there may be no correct english spelling. Without the "i" seems to be the more common spelling. Note that many references to 'Ediacaria' are probably to a specific fossil genus with that spelling, not to the hills/fauna. I don't have any problem with using the more common spelling -- DJK.
- In the decades of debate leading up to the formalization of Ediacaran Period, both "Ediacaran" and "Ediacarian" were proposed and used by different authors. In the end "Ediacaran" won and has been official since 2004. --Zamphuor 11:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this enriching site.--220.127.116.11 13:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the article to reflect this, as also described on this page:
The last National Geographic had a little sidebar about the Ediacaran period being officially expanded. Anyone know about this?
I have no idea what's happened to the code... my hope is that someone will see this [who is smarter than I] and maybe try to fix it, 'cause I sure know I can't :3 --Scareth (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Vendian versus Ediacaran
I VERY URGENTLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS ARTICLE
M.A. Fedonkin, B.S. Sokolov, M.A. Semikhatov, N.M.Chumakov (2007). "Vendian versus Ediacaran: priorities, contents, prospectives." In: "The Rise and Fall of the Vendian (Ediacaran) Biota. Origin of the Modern Biosphere. Transactions of the International Conference on the IGCP Project 493, August 20-31, 2007, Moscow." Moscow: GEOS
It was premature to approve the Ediacaran as a new Geological System and Period. Formally the Ediacaran does not fit to any of the stratigraphic categories recommended by the International Stratigraphic Guide in terms of the stratigraphic nomenclature. The Ediacaran has no internal structure of the subordinate unites. Its upper boundary (defined paleoichnologically) is blurred or, rather, uncertain. The identification and correlation of the Ediacaran lower boundary beyond its GCCP can not be realized because of absence of the time-relevant characters in the Nuccaleena cap carbonates. The approval Ediacaran puts the Proterozoic stratigraphy in the state of crisis that directly affects many areas of activity in Earth sciences and applied geology (from the stratigraphy and geological mapping to the paleotectonic and paleogeographic reconstructions).
- Appendix 2. Comments By B. S. Sokolov, M. A. Semikhatov, And M. A. Fedonkin. (2004) In: "The Ediacaran Period: A New Addition to the Geologic Time Scale." Submitted on Behalf of the Terminal Proterozoic Subcommission of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. pp. 32-34
- V. V. Khomentovskii and G. A. Karlova (2005). "The Tommotian Stage Base as the Cambrian Lower Boundary in Siberia". Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 13 (1): 21–34.
- A. Ragozina, D. Dorjnamjaa, A. Krayushkin, E. Serezhnikova (2008). "’’Treptichnus pedum’’ and the Vendian-Cambrian boundary". 33 Intern. Geol. Congr. August 6- 14, 2008, Oslo, Norway. Abstracts. Section HPF 07 Rise and fall of the Ediacaran (Vendian) biota. P. 183.
- V. V. Khomentovsky (2008) "The Yudomian of Siberia, Vendian and Ediacaran systems of the International stratigraphic scale." Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation. 16 (6): 581-598 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alnagov (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Late Vendian glaciation
Chumakov, N. M. (August 2009). "The Baykonurian glaciohorizon of the Late Vendian". Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 17 (4): 373–381. doi:10.1134/S0869593809040029.
Age of the base of the Ediacaran
The lower boundary GSSP of the Ediacaran is at the base of the cap carbonate (Nuccaleena Formation), immediately above the Elatina diamictite in the Australia. There is a widely accepted view that the Elatina Formation and overlying Nuccaleena Formation (the 'cap carbonate') correlates with the 635.5±1.2 Ma Ghaub Formation in Namibia and a 635.2±0.6 Ma ash bed within the cap dolostone above the Nantuo Tillite in China. However, dating of glacial successions in King Island and Tasmania in Australia suggests an alternative age of the Elatina glaciation (and consequently the base of the Ediacaran) is ~580 Ma, about the same age as the Gaskiers glaciation.
- Grey, K, (2008) "Biostratigraphic correlation of Neoproterozoic glacial successions in Australia". In S.J. Gallagher and M.W. Wallace eds. "Neoproterozoic extreme climates and the origin of early metazoan life, Selwyn Symposium of the Geological Society of Australia Victoria Division, September 2008". Geological Society of Australia Extended Abstracts No. 91, p.5-11.
- K. Grey & C. R. Calver (2007). "Correlating the Ediacaran of Australia". Geological Society, London, Special Publications 286: 115–135. doi:10.1144/SP286.8.
Free text: http://books.google.ru/books?id=GA7-8JIh9IwC&pg=PA115
David Attenborough TV programme
My understanding of the Ediacaran has been that given in this article, of a pre-Cambrian form of life which has no clear relation to the Cambrian, but I have just watched David Attenborough's TV programme First Life which gives a different picture. He describes Charnia and the Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve fossils as pre-Ediacaran, the first multi-cellular life, but without a body plan and no apparent successors, and the Ediacaran as succeeding with the first body plan (head, body and rear) and leading on to the Cambrian. I cannot find any sources for this view. Even the website for Mistaken Point at http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/parks/wer/r_mpe/ describes it as Ediacaran. Does anyone know of sources?
A separate point is that I find the Wikipedia article unsatisfactory as a general article on an important subject. Much of it is incomprensible for the general reader, with unexplained technical terms, or ones with Wikilinks in red, showing that not even Wikipedia has yet got round to explaining them. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I get the impression that a lot of this information is on the bleeding edge of research; I just read an article all about how oxygenation was found 300m to 400m earlier than was suspected (oct 2013). Also it seems that researchers keep changing/disagreeing on names of eras/periods. Even the K-T extinction has been renamed because the word 'tertiary' is no longer in use. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)