Talk:List of vertebrate fauna of the Maastrichtian stage

Birds[edit]

At least attempting a phylogenetic sequence would be nice ;-) Also, as descriptions better pick from List of fossil birds, which are more to the point, and edit as needed. See the individual articles for caveat emptors - the most modern birds that can be identified are some indeterminable charadriiform/procellariiform/pelecaniform etc mishmash and Anseriformes. Verified paleognath fossils may be lacking entirely, which is probably not significant but must be noted. To have 2 subsections that are not even 100% verified but not Enantiornithes is misleading, as is the 3-lineage split of Charadriiformes (highly misleading even). None of the species need be mentioned by name methinks - or whoever is crazy enough to do Cimolopteryx and claim it's correct? Me not. Maybe do away with subsections? Layout is badly messed up. But this page has good odds to become brilliant! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about birds, so most of that went right over my head. If you want to rearrange it, then go ahead. Just don't be erasing stuff unecessarily. Let's hope this page succeeds! :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Split[edit]

I've been thinking, and I think this article could be split to prevent its size from becoming unreasonable. Here is my proposed divisions:

This wouldn't effect the article much as it is now, but it would be helpful towards the goal of keeping it reasonable, assuming this thing gets added to in the future. I also think it would be neat to make complementary pages that break down the Maastrichtian biota by habitat/lifestyle, and so I propose the creation of the following articles:

These pages would be easily created by cutting and pasting from the former ones, and there would be a certain amount of overlap between them (For instance, a sea gull might go in both "Aerial" and "Aquatic and shoreline") but I personally, would find such pages interesting and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I've formulated in my sandbox a more "cladistically correct" split for theropods between maniraptorans and non-maniraptorans, with the previously separate avialans as a subcategory, in order to make the list more readable. Also instead of the saurischian/ornithischian split (a rather weak consensus) I categorized them all as dinosaur subcategories with sauropods and theropods at equal standing with ornithischians given that all three orders/suborders were extremely and almost equally distinct from each other since the early Jurassic. I am planning to implement this scheme within the week so if anyone has any objections to it please say it before I do. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and extinctions[edit]

Is Metasequoia really the only known Maastrichtian plant?

Also, the cross is used to mean an extinct taxon, which Metasequoia is not (see its article.) The cross is missing from all the non-avian theropod genera, as well. I fixed this. Vultur (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and extinctions[edit]

Is Metasequoia really the only known Maastrichtian plant?

Also, the cross is used to mean an extinct taxon, which Metasequoia is not (see its article.) The cross is missing from all the non-avian theropod genera, as well. I fixed this. Vultur (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

purpose of the daggers?[edit]

I see a lot of † but I don't see any reason why. Any ideas? --96.229.253.138 (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a symbool for extinction. Abyssal (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperornis[edit]

The Hesperornis was already extinct before the Maastrichtian according to its page Niels de Groot (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an update[edit]

Seriously, Thespius occidentalis is valid since when? And E. saskatchawanensis? Where's Acheroraptor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article needs to be replace with a category. Abyssal (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a category would be nice, but an article would be useful and easy access source of information.142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are purgatorius and plesiadapiformes doing here?[edit]

These are both paleocene. No fossils have been found in the cretaceous layers. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Yes they have, but not much User:Wesley J M

Our article on Purgatorius explains it. Check Google Scholar if you don't believe the article. There was a single tooth, a molar, that was initially identified as Cretaceous. It later turned out to be intrusive, from a prehistoric landslide that carried Paleogene material down to below the K-T boundary. Zyxwv99 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's 66, not 65[edit]

Someone has really got to fix the time settings, change them to 66 instead of 65. I know we all like to say 65 million years, but that's only a popular rounding to the nearest number by fives. It's really 66, just look everywhere else on this website and you will see. Wesley J M

Unnecessary capital in title[edit]

Shouldn't 'Vertebrate' in the article title be 'vertebrate', i.e. lowercase? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Any objections? Geogene (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Velociraptor Restoration.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]