Talk:Signor–Lipps effect

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stub tag[edit]

I've removed the "stub" tag. There isn't much more to say about the S-L effect per se, and the article contains the prime citation.Philcha 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism?[edit]

The article explains what the effect is, and what the consequences are. But it totally omits the causes of the effect. I read the referenced article, and the causes are still somewhat unclear to me. The effect is proved by logic argument, not experimental data. So it seems to me the article must discuss the causes. 97.126.61.154 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical artifact[edit]

My understanding here is that (while perfectly valid as an effect) this is explainable wholly in terms of statistics and elementary palaeontology. Presumably the argument runs as follows [1] Fossilisation is itself an extremely rare event (consider how many T.Rex. specimens have been found compared to how many existed during the cretaceous). [2] The chance of a fossil being the last of its kind is even less likely. Possible, yes, but statistically unlikely. [3] The chance of humans finding a fossil is also not very high. So although it is theoretically possible that we have a fossil of the last of any species is vanishingly small. The chance of us having the fossil of the last of more than one species is smaller still. Therefore it's 99.999999999999% certain that we have no fossils of "the last of its kind". Is that right? Rob Burbidge (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And (as it's authors knew) the Signor–Lipps effect is fallible - see Coelacanth and Schinderhannes. --Philcha (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Schinderhannes link is irrelevant. A very loose metaphor at best.

And the discovery of the still extant Coelacanth is not a failure of the SL effect, but an example of it: the last member of the species didn't fossilise and that the species survived to the present day is proof of that.

Diagram[edit]

It's nice that we have a diagram, but it would be better if it were to contain some actual species. Of course, that poses the problem that we don't know when the actual extinction date was for many, but maybe the dinosaur example from the article could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]