|WikiProject Geology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Move to Floian?
- In Wikipedia:Requested_moves, User:Abyssal leviathin suggested moving this page to Floian: "This geological stage has been officially renamed by the international scientific body responsible for such matters. A section detailing the meaning of the original name and the reason for the renaming will be included when the article move is completed.Abyssal leviathin (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)"; but geologists have been calling this stage the Arenigian since the year dot, and This .pdf link says "into the sandstones of the middle Arenig/ late Floian (Early ... tween the early to middle Arenig/early to late Floian" as if the Floian period is part of the Arenigian period. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but, it appears that you're absolutely right the Floian is "part," of the Arenig, or more accurately from what I can gather, it's a "truncated" version of the Arenig stage. The end of the traditional Arenig-age strata technically overlaps with other later stages instead of ending where it was originally believed to. This opens up a lot of doors that could allow confusion and murkiness in. It also seems that the Arenig as it was traditionally defined had no analogues outside of the UK, making the term of little use to the international scientific community. See here for my source on all that. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the stages are, unfortunately, different, so different pages should be maintained. The International Committee for Stratigraphy has recently been taking advantage of improvements in radiometric dating, which have made it possible to formally define and date stages; this has led to the definition of new stages according to the most suitable boundaries, rather than the historical ones. This means that lots of new stages have been created; since their beginnings and ends are not the same as existing stages (because they are defined at different lcoations or times), the old stages are different, and redundant. No stages have simply been renamed (this would just sow unnecessary confusion!). This means that the "old" name still refers to a period of time, albeit one that isn't ratified (or strictly defined), and that scientists should avoid using where possible. Smith609 Talk 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
North American Deposits
- If you know anything, please be bold and make some sourced additions. :D Abyssal (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi chronophiles and chronophobes. It's been over a year since anyone further commented on the Arengian issue. Now as for the Lower Ordovician in North America its called the Canadian According to some (e.g. the ICS} this is now the Ibexian, which by the way isn't a Cambrian stage in spite of the redirect.The problem with the Ibexian is that it does extend some 2.7 million years back into the Late Cambrian. The Canadian which correlates exactly with the Lower Ordovician is divided into four stages. The lower, known as the Gasconadian is equivalent to the European and world wide Tremedocian. The remaining three, the Demingian, Jeffersonian, and Cassinian collectively are equivalent to the Floian which is the same thing as the Arenigian, except.... The Arenigian (Arenig) is based on a section of strata in Wales, the Floian on strata from Sweden which is, you guessed it, Arenigian in age. So now you have it. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Arenigian biota -too much of a good thing?
I don't think that the long lists of brachiopds, cephalopods and trilobites enhance the article - they simply make it more cumbersome to navigate around. I'd suggest they be placed in a page or pages of their own with suitable links from pieces of condensed text on this page explaining their relevance. I'd prefer to leave that to an expert on Arenigian fauna though! cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The Ptychopariida section lists both Balnibarbi and Bulnibarbi as rtrilobite genera. The latter (Bulnibarbi) seems like mis-spelling, but both are listed, separately, in the article's source (Sepkoski). Does anyone know for definite about this? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)