![]() | Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 September 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Carboniferous. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added Pennsylvanian and Mississippian labels to stage names to show to which epoch stages belong; lowercased several "early" and "late" Carboniferous because early and late Carboniferous are not formal subdivisions (Early and Late Mississippian and Pennsylvanian are, however). -- Geologyguy 15:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite its title suggesting wider coverage, this section is almost exclusively devoted to the coal-bearing rocks of the period whereas (and I'm speaking largely from a UK perspective here) the
Carboniferous Limestone and the Namurian Millstone Grit are of equal or greater importance when considered from the point of view of the modern landscapes they create even if they have not been of such economic significance - though a lot of limestone is quarried. Scotland has an important suite of volcanic rocks in the Carboniferous too. I may get around to adding something unless someone else wants to take this on.
Geopersona (
talk)
08:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the following article be added to the reference section, with a short extract under "Rocks and Coal": ( http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/06/29/3534160.htm?) CMOS222 ( talk) 07:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
If this encyclopedia is international, why does it feature a map of the paleo-USA? I think it should be removed and the person who posted it should really rethink his editing policy... I don't see any maps of wales or GB in the article about Cambrian period nor any germany, swiss or france maps in the Jurassic period article. I don't think the idea would even cross any of those people's minds... This article is USA centered and should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinekonata ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What does "Other life forms - None" suppose to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.7.35 ( talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Per "Snelling Chronology of the Geologic Record" 1985 best estimate for the date was 286+/-5Ma-ago (pp 114-117). Most all-Carboniferous Webb sights use this date. Query of atleast one sight resulted in issue of a tentative correction to the ICS 299Ma-ago time scale. I have found no explanations to the change to 299Ma-ago from the widely publicized 286Ma-ago which to my reckoning started about 10 years ago. Many sights to include museums use 286, even USGS has that date in many pages recently updated last year. This is a request for references as well as general comments. Morbas ( talk) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Periods#Re-visiting_Periods cheers Geopersona ( talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Over the past 200Myr, the Americas have obducted over ancient seafloor. And, North America has "swept up" numerous "accreted island arcs", e.g. the Intermontane & Insular terrains of the Pacific northwest region. Ergo, those accretions originally resided far out to sea, in the middle of the ancient paleo-Pacific ocean (evidently on the Farallon plate, east of what is now the east Pacific rise Mid-Ocean Ridge). For example, the Insular islands are thought to have arisen circa 330Mya. Perhaps ancient paleo-Pacific islands ("mini continents") should be depicted, on reconstructed earth maps, from the Carboniferous period? 66.235.38.214 ( talk) 07:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The statement about a 35% concentration of oxygen resulting in an increase in density of 1/3 did sound implausible, but was correctly attributed to the source, David Beerling's 2007 book The Emerald Planet. I therefore undid the revert, and have updated the reference. Nevertheless it is sufficiently weird to need checking out. Beerling attributes the observation to the following article: Rayner, JMV (2003) Gravity, the atmosphere and the evolution of animal locomotion. pp. 161-183 IN: Evolution on planet Earth:the impact of the physical environment. Ed by LJ Rothschild and AM Lister, Academic press Amsterdam ISBN 978-0123884893. I have no access to this at the moment. If anyone can help verify that is what JMV Rayner actually said about the relationship between O2 concentration and atmospheric density it would be a useful contribution. Plantsurfer ( talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In a 35% O2 environment many things could spontaneously catch fire that don't today. That would be self regulating then, I think 35% must be about tops. Ealtram ( talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Would not this say "in the geological history of the planet"? History by itself begins with humans writing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soparamens ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Mississippian and Pennsylvanian are now formally recognised globally (through the decisions of the ICS) as sub-periods of the Carboniferous - a situation which applies equally to America and the rest of the world. Should we not therefore adjust the text to reflect that fact ie American geologists having formerly treated them as periods (in preference to Carboniferous) and non-American geologists now assimilating those terms into their own working, alongside 'Carboniferous'. Of course the 'non-standard' practice of individual geologists and indeed the written legacy will ensure that the two American-originated terms 'Mississippian period' and 'Pennsylvanian period' will continue to appear for some considerable time to come just as will 'Tertiary' - each term having through international agreement, been superseded. Continuing informal use in all cases should be properly acknowledged: comment invited. cheers Geopersona ( talk) 06:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Lbdearmas recently changed the cause of the Carboniferous rainforest collapse from "climate change" to "environmental change". I reverted that based on my reading of the cited source. Lbdearmas has now reverted back to his preferred version. The source says "In cratonic areas of North America (where the effects of tectonics can be excluded), an abrupt shift to more arid climates has been linked to rainforest collapse (DiMichele et al., 2009, 2010), though the exact causal mechanism remains uncertain". It could be changed to "aridification" I suppose, although that is a change in climate. Mikenorton ( talk) 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Most of the links in this page seem to have been changed to a redirect to a Facebook page with hate speech. I'm not sure how to figure out which past edits had the right links to roll back to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.61.231 ( talk) 04:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
In January 2016, the following paper titled "Delayed fungal evolution did not cause the Paleozoic peak in coal production" was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4780611/
The paper states that coal accumulation patterns implicate a unique combination of climate and tectonics during Pangea formation. Specifically, dead plant material accumulated in wet swampy anoxic environments during the Carboniferous Period, and was buried in basins in the Earth's crust formed as a consequence of mountain-building. There is no need to invoke a theory of time lag in the evolution of fungi to explain the observed evidence.
In a subsequent article intended for laypeople, the paper's senior author, Kevin Boyce of Stanford, is quoted as saying, regarding the old "time lag" idea: "Much of the scientific community was really enamored with this simple, straightforward explanation. So, it has not only refused to die, it has become a conventional wisdom."
http://news.stanford.edu/2016/01/22/coal-formation-pangea-012216/
The paper presents other arguments refuting the idea that lack of organisms to decompose lignin was responsible for coal deposits (which would invalidate much of what is currently written in the "Rocks and coal" section of the Wikipedia page) but they need to be analyzed and summarized by someone familiar with the subject matter, which is not me. 209.239.1.216 ( talk) 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm a UK wikipedian hoping for balanced international perspective. I'd take issue with a couple of statements in this section: "Carboniferous rocks in Europe and eastern North America largely consist of a repeated sequence of limestone, sandstone, shale and coal beds.[14] In North America, the early Carboniferous is largely marine limestone, which accounts for the division of the Carboniferous into two periods in North American schemes."
There is in the British and Irish Carboniferous, no repeated sequence, as described in the first (seemingly referenced) sentence, though there are of course repeating cycles in various parts of the period. And as to the second sentence, the early Carboniferous in Britain and Ireland is largely marine limestone but the Carboniferous has not traditionally been broken into two periods here as a result so why should it be said to account for that situation in North America? thanks Geopersona ( talk) 09:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event is for all intents and purposes based on the results of a single paper released last year [2], and the term has subsequently only been used by one other paper. For concepts like biodiversification events there really needs to be more literature than this to write about it, simply regurgitating the results of a single paper is inadequate. The contents of the article could be adequately covered in the Carboniferous article, and I suggest that the useful contents be selectively merged here, and then that article be redirected. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Can somebody with better understanding than me check if more buried biologically fixed carbon "lead to" higher atmospheric Oxygen. My (non-expert) intuition tells me it was the increased number of plants doing more photosynthesis which increased atmospheric O2 not the deposits of fixed carbon. Either way, I feel this could be rewritten to clarify. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.2.131 ( talk) 00:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I’m happy to have a go at rewriting the paleogeography section along similar lines to the equivalent Devonian section. It’s going to take me a while so just wanted to check whether anyone else was working on this before I start? Silica Cat ( talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)