|Phanerozoic received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Phanerozoic has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Geology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article. I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footers, and that other information can be supplied where important, by links from the text. See discussion at Template talk:Geotimebox. --Bejnar 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
A Return to Phanerozoic Average Sea Level?
Might we be near the end of a large cyclical regression; not so different from Permian end regression? Statistically might it not seem more likely that we are due to revert at least towards an average of sea level for overall Phanerozoic, or even a further transgression? Might this be a natural underlying trend, independent of any superimposed anthropomorphic effect? Might we be headed for an Eocene/Paleocene world? A world with no ice; courtesy of east Antarctica going in ~15,000 years?
30 million years hence, what might our 'present' stratum (pl: strata) of say 10 million years look like? Might there be any evidence of mankind? For example, if we occupy the middle of such strata, then plus or minus 5 million years. For the past 5 million years, there was no effect. For the future 5 million years, transgression and Yellowstone's Western and Midwest repeated ash fallout would seem to reveal nature's dominant hand. For 100-200 meter elevation of sea level to less than Cretaceous peak, most of southern U.S. would be inundated, and likewise for eastern coast. The Seaway would flood and enlarge Great Lakes into an inland sea. All coastal cities, and inland lake ports would become reefs initially, and then dissolution. Humanity would would once again be on the move. Therefore, might there be no evidence of mankind's handiwork in such strata (stratum); not even hard plastic cherts? So from a geological perspective, mankind's impact on the environment might be quite negligible, in comparison to nature's broader, deeper, more sustainable ways. Does our myopia greatly underestimate nature's scope and impact, in comparison to that of mankind's? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the name comes from "the Greek words φαίνω and ζωή, meaning make life appear"; not quite, zoon refers to animals, not life in general (rather a kingdom-ist perspective, I suppose). I'd change it, but I'm having trouble with my non-Latin character sets.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Always a problem when people who have little or no Greek (or any language) get into arguments about it. ζᾧον (zô(i)on) is indeed Greek for 'animal', but ζωή is 'life'. The current 'visible life' is absolutely accurate. Koro Neil (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would the Brits spell it with ae? The ae digraph represents an either original Latin ae or a Latinisation of an original Greek αι (ai). Standard American spelling simplifies ae to e in either case. The Greek word for 'visible' is φανερός (phanerós). Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon do not record a spelling *φαναιρός, and there is no justification for it. The ae spelling has over 4000 Google hits, so I'll leave it, but some expert British input would be good here. Koro Neil (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Eras of the Phanerozoic
I've added a description of each era in the Phanerozoic a couple of days ago, and also placed the descriptions to the corresponding articles (Mesozoic article gets the description of the periods of the Mesozoic, Cenozoic article gets the description of the Cenozoic, and the Paleozoic article gets the description of the Paleozoic...) Tell me what you think! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The Paleogene section claims that "Paraceratherium, the largest land mammal to ever live evolved during this epoch". However, the Largest organisms page states, "The largest known species was for many decades considered to be Paraceratherium orgosensis, a rhinoceros relative thought to have stood up to 5.5 m (18 ft) tall, measured over 9 m (30 ft) long and may have weighed up to 20 tonnes. However, more recent estimates suggest that it was surpassed by the proboscidean Palaeoloxodon namadicus at about 22 tonnes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWynn (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The Biodiversity section seems to be a bit focused on a single paper. "Hyperbolic growth of marine and continental biodiversity through the phanerozoic and community evolution". This only has 6 citations.  It seems rather undue weight for this theory. --Salix alba (talk): 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)