Talk:Palynology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

  • I don't think the Thanikaimoni references are suitable for this article. They've no direct bearing on the content of the article, and if we all added similarly specific works of mnay other prominent palynologists then the article would quickly turn into a nonsense. Unless anyone can give a valid reason they should remain, I'll edit them out next week. NickW 08:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there some sort of consensus on whether to use Paleo or Palaeo? I noticed the link to paleoclimatology uses the "eo" rather than the "aeo" format (I fixed it since it wasn't working with "aeo").142.58.241.101 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I did the last chunk of edits. I hope you're all okay with them. I did it under "142.58.241.101" but then I got myself an account so that I'm not so anonymous. It would be nice if this section could get up to a high quality level so that palynology could get the recognition it deserves! Stealth cat 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm working on this, at least the discussion page now. I'd like to suggest that this is a Mid importance document, seeing as it is a sub-dicipline of Botany, but how exactly does this work? Is a sub-dicipline that is (admittedly) not hugely popular as important as a plant genus that is popular (Poplar)? It seems to be of fairly good quality, but that's just my own opinion. I'd like to work more on it though. 24.84.197.47 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Critique[edit]

This wiki article gave a more focused approach on the proxy data in the field of Palynology versus the article of paleoceanography. It gave good examples and good images to describe what the field of science it dealt. It explains the use of proxy well and has a link to another wiki page to further explain proxy. One thing that I happened to notice was a lack of newer material which would be useful, But it does show the application of palynology and how it can be used in multiple methods and fields of science. All the sources are old and should be updated to more recent times, for instance newer peer-reviewed articles. This is crucial in my opinion because we have newer technologies to enhance small particles that otherwise weren’t seen with the naked eye as well as older technologies. It also lacks sources and wide range of data can be collected if more academic journals and peer reviewed articles were present. User:adamksza anders.80 1 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamksza (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merged. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Palynomorph and Palynology cover much of the same ground and should be merged. As it stands, the latter article says more about the former anyway, and trying to maintain two different articles would unnecessarily spread the coverage of a single topic too thin. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Palynomorph doesn't seem to have much potential for expansion. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Palynofacies[edit]

I'm no expert but this seems to be just one aspect of Palynology and would be better as a section there? PatHadley (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

The article hits on the data analyses of the method, which matched up to what I read online about palynology from other credible sources. But the article did not mention a lot of assumptions about the proxy method. During the introduction of palynology it discussed some of the “roots” of palynology. In the last section it mentions applications of palynology and lists out different things it can be used for. The article also points out a lot of the strengths of the proxy method, like the different applications, as well as the different ways palynofacies can be used. But it doesn't mention the weaknesses or what the proxy method is not useful for. 

Palynology. Austin, Tex: American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, 1977. Internet resource.

Tschudy, Robert H, and Richard A. Scott. Aspects of Palynology. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1969. Print. The two sources that I found were not listed on the Wikipedia page, but the first source came from the American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, and the wikipedia page had other sources about palynology that came from the same authors as the article that I found. The second however was not on the wikipedia page.


I recommend that in the applications section there is a more broad definition and information about how it can be used. It lists out a lot of examples of things that it is currently being used for but there could be more broad information about it. I also recommend that there are more pictures added to the Chemical Preparation section, I think that's an area where a visual example would help to get a better understanding. BeckyDye (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Rebecca Dye[reply]

Earliest observations[edit]

The earliest reported observations of pollen under a microscope are likely to have been in the 1640s by the English botanist Nehemiah Grew.

How is that possible if he was only born in 1641? It has to be some other decade, although several sources give this one. Adeliine (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palynology. 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:

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) 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Palynology. 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:

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) 08:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant recklessness[edit]

  Of course I guess we dare not forget that “f.r.” Could be considered the 2nnd half of our middle name. Nevertheless, I merely hedged the claim of definition, IIRC making the claim along the lines of reducing the dignity of the reckless exaggeration I found, especially as my role in this is limited roughly to noting the presence of exaggeration. Shame on the guilty colleague(s), who was responsible. At best, they have misconstrued the source. It may not have been intentional falsification, but it was, and remains, vandalism. The source does not come anywhere near justifying what I found; I have only “drooped a flag on the play”; colleagues more vigorous than I must rescue the ravished princes. JerzyA, who is too weary to force this iPad into generating my sig,q qnow at 0140 Paris time, 0240 On 2020 June 21. Amen.

Article incompletely integrated[edit]

The article gives the impression that an article on pollen analysis has been incompletely altered to include other aspects of modern palynology. The history section in particular does nothing to explain how the area of study was broadened from the anlaysis of pollen and spores to include other microfossils and microorganic objects. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palynology&oldid=1200061642"