|
|
Post by susannne on Nov 4, 2011 16:13:09 GMT
Hi ! Being a rather new member of this forum I still find it difficult to find my way round. So bear with me if this has already been mentioned. If it has, perhaps somebody will be kind to show me a link ? Well, - here it is : I wass browsing for info about prehistoric mammals, and found this site : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prehistoric_MammalsIt seems this very good initiative is in need for help. I thought this forum might the place to find such experts ? |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 4, 2011 16:29:37 GMT
Hi ! Being a rather new member of this forum I still find it difficult to find my way round. So bear with me if this has already been mentioned. If it has, perhaps somebody will be kind to show me a link ? Well, - here it is : I wass browsing for info about prehistoric mammals, and found this site : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prehistoric_MammalsIt seems this very good initiative is in need for help. I thought this forum might the place to find such experts ? First rule--if someone claims to be an expert, they're not! ;D Although some of us, yes, are fans of prehistoric mammals. Some of us have even done research on them. I would also take issue with the very first page--mammoths would qualify, but thylacine would not? Really? Not even the Miocene-age Riversleigh species? Generally, we refer to things like the quagga and Tasmanian thylacine as "recently extinct". Prevents confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by susannne on Nov 4, 2011 17:25:26 GMT
You see, - they REALLY need help :-D You are right ! They should define it at lot better, - perhaps even, what is "recently"  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 4, 2011 17:37:11 GMT
That would be where the 'historical' part comes in--the problem is more their blanket statements (like saying 'thylacines', when perhaps they don't know what that actually is).
And of course, you also get into 'subfossil' species--ones, like the giant Malagasy lemurs, that were hunted to extinction recently enough that their bones are really fossils; but late enough that people did it (with or without 'histories'). Moas would be another good example.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 4, 2011 22:21:54 GMT
That would be where the 'historical' part comes in--the problem is more their blanket statements (like saying 'thylacines', when perhaps they don't know what that actually is). And of course, you also get into 'subfossil' species--ones, like the giant Malagasy lemurs, that were hunted to extinction recently enough that their bones are really fossils; but late enough that people did it (with or without 'histories'). Moas would be another good example. But Moas aren't mammals. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 4, 2011 22:28:27 GMT
That would be where the 'historical' part comes in--the problem is more their blanket statements (like saying 'thylacines', when perhaps they don't know what that actually is). And of course, you also get into 'subfossil' species--ones, like the giant Malagasy lemurs, that were hunted to extinction recently enough that their bones are really fossils; but late enough that people did it (with or without 'histories'). Moas would be another good example. But Moas aren't mammals. But they are an example of a subfossil. |
|
