Talk:Araucarioxylon arizonicum

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	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.

Arizona Low‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona 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.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beehives[edit]

This seems doubtful, since the first unambiguous bees are from the Cretaceous.--Curtis Clark 02:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps it's the bees older cousins who started making hives. Dunno, feel free to check it out. --DanielCD 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Curtic clark and have removed the statement from the page pending a backing citation being found.--Kevmin (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is back. --Una Smith (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged out the hive comment. form what I can find nest building Hymenoptera appeared in the middle Cretaceous, so "beehives" are very unlikely. If some one has access to this article it appears to at least mention the structures (noting them as very controversial), and may clear up this concept. --Kevmin (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article? I followed the link to an article by Sid Ash about possible mites in tree ferns. Same formation and location, but very different plant, plant part, and animal. --Una Smith (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The google scholar search linked to something in the article which did mention the "hives" but I dont have access so I was not able to actually check what the mention was. --Kevmin (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move, closed by request of nominator Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Araucarioxylon arizonicum → Araucarioxylon — A. arizonicum should redirect to the genus page Araucarioxylon per wp:paleontology combines with the numerous other species described in this form taxon, --Kevmin (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — How many species have been assigned to Araucarioxylon? Because form genera are, well, form genera, I would favor keeping the species separate. --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search shows at least 5 different species, with A. arizonicum being the most widely known. however It also appears it my have been rendered a synonym of several other species non in the genus Araucarioxylon. Im not certain why Araucarioxylon would be a bad page to have. It is the form taxon for all Araucaria like petrified woods thus it would be very simple to cover the genus with notes on the differences between the species as is done with the other extinct animal genera pages.--Kevmin (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Araucarioxylon were a plant rather than a fossil plant, WP:FLORA suggests that if there were only a single species, it should be at Araucarioxylon anyway.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil plant form genera are also known as organ genera. These genera are holding bins for incomplete specimens that have been formally described and named. Some organ genera are monotypic, but Araucarioxylon is not one of those. The idea behind this genus, and many others, is that when more complete specimens are found that allow dispersed organs to be put together, the species can be gathered together via synonymies. This works just fine, until it happens to the type species of the genus. Araucarioxylon is a bin of any and all specimens of fossil wood that appear to belong to Araucariaceae. There is no expectation of Araucarioxylon being a natural group. The content about the one species could be merged into the genus article, as a subsection, but what I think is really needed here is an article about the genus itself, including its role as an organ genus. --Una Smith (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Based on A Taxonomic Problem With Araucarioxylon arizonicum by W.P. Armstrong (December 2008), it would seem that Araucarioxylon arizonicum is an illegitimate name (nomen superfluum), and fossils identified as such can be Pullisilvaxylon arizonicum, Pullisilvaxylon daughertii, Chinleoxylon knowltonii, or a variety of other fossils (always late Triassic?), with microscopic investigation of the right sections needed to classify them. Araucarioxylon seems to contain other species, for example A. telentangensis described in 1989 at doi:10.1016/0743-9547(90)90025-9. The whole thing looks like quite a mess (not of wikipedia's making), and I'm not sure what to suggest. Even the usual premise that articles should be arranged by phylogeny, or scientific name, may be less practical here than with extant taxa or better-understood fossils. Kingdon (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of muddle is not unusual in the older paleobotanical literature. Not just genera but also species can be grab bags: Araucarioxylon arizonicum being any wood that looks vaguely like extant Araucariaceae, found in Arizona. --Una Smith (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other species of Araucarioxylon, then there should be an article at Araucarioxylon arizonicum, since that is the name used for the wood fossils in Petrified Forest, and readers are likely to look there for information about those fossils. It would seem that there is also enough information for a separate article at Araucarioxylon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the situation in page Araucarioxylon arizonicum, which I have made a start at. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an article about the genus, User:Una Smith/Araucarioxylon; the taxonomic history of the genus is complex and largely separate from this one species. --Una Smith (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the draft article I would agree that this can be closed! Thanks for the great article on the genus, Una. --Kevmin (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Araucarioxylon arizonicum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026201058/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/pfnp.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/pfnp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]