|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Extinction event article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Graphic doesnt jive
" In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died"
This is not reflected in the graphic. None show above or close to 50%.
- You're quite right, but the diagram doesn't show all animal species. The description says Note that these data do not represent all genera that have ever lived, but rather only a selection of marine genera whose qualities are such that they are easily preserved as fossils. So I guess this is the reason for the conflict you have found.Nwhit (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I see some reference to the latest (6th?) Mass Extinction Event, about 2010, but do not see any response in the article to suggest that it be included in this article.
This is an article on the subject of extinction events, and imho no such article would be complete without at least a mention of this: there is certainly ample evidence and citations regarding the reality of the Holocene Extinction to merit it being included in the article. Note too that there is a Wikipedia article on the Holocene Extinction, that should be linked this one.
Is "Extinction Level Event" really an appropriate alternate name?
I believe the term "Extinction Level Event [ELE]" is a fictional jargon invented by the 1998 movie Deep Impact. I've never seen it used in anything scholarly, and Google Books turns up no references to it before 1998. Most of the results Google turns up are blogs trying to sound scientific (and one music group), which I'd bet anything were all inspired by the movie.
Graph of usage in books over time:
In the movie, a search for "E.L.E." turns up tons of research—but in the movie, Earth is also hit by a meteor. Neither one is real, and I don't think either one is appropriate to mention as fact in an article on this scientific subject. It's possible that after it was invented by the movie, it entered popular use and is now established enough to warrant mention, but I doubt it. I'm removing it from the lede, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to change it back. —MillingMachine (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Terminology used in a movie, television programme or popular press sometimes does become part of scientific terminology. A good example is supervolcano, which started mainly from a BBC television programme in 2000  and compare GoogleScholar hits for 2000-2004  with those for 2005-2008  and 2009-2013 . A search on GoogleScholar] for ELE, does produce quite a few relevant results. It may not be appropriate to give this as an alternative at the moment, but I wouldn't bet on it staying that way. Mikenorton (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
"Many other hypotheses have been proposed, such as the spread of a new disease, or simple out-competition following an especially successful biological innovation. But all have been rejected, usually for one of the following reasons: they require events or processes for which there is no evidence; they assume mechanisms which are contrary to the available evidence; they are based on other theories which have been rejected or superseded."
Isn't that supposition? Which one would, say, disease fall under? It's not a process with no evidence, it doesn't assume mechanism contrary to the evidence, and it certainly hasn't been rejected/superseded by other theories. --Stevehim (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Extinction Event - Definition
I have a problem with the definition of an extinction event in the introduction. Extinction needs to be clearly distinguished from an extinction event. Extinction is the disappearance/death of a species (or larger taxonomic group). (One can make an argument that it also includes sub-populations). Extinction has no correlation with biomass, afaik. The "amount" of life on Earth can be measured in a number of ways, most general would be (imho) metabolic energy conversion, most specific the number of cells or the mass of organisms present. The article does a very bad job of trying to explain why counts of species are used as a measure of the "amount" or "abundance" of life. It has NO business, imho to attempt the redefinition of the word "amount". Number of species is not the "amount of life". Species is not life. An extinction process may involve evolutionary changes, elimination by a competitor, or destruction of a habitat, and of course often includes all three. This article confuses these possibly separate processes.22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)