Fossils B/C

[UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F]

same as with CircuitLab, would anyone happen to know a good place to start on this event?

See my previous post. Honestly, the best way to start is to just jump in! Take a look at Wikipedia pages and look up any words you don't know. Get a good grip of the geological timescale (just in general, you don't have to memorize any periods, and looking at any units of time smaller than epochs isn't really helpful). Imagine the world as it might've been before, and have fun with it!

Agree, except I would say you should memorize all of the geologic periods from the Phanerozoic, and it's also helpful to memorize the epochs in the Cenozoic. Being able to refer to those from memory is very helpful sometimes.

Right, I just meant in the beginning. If you get through the entire list, you'll know the geologic timescale by heart already

[ScottMaurer19]

The real question is whose bright idea is it to have student trying to differentiate between Shale and Mudstone/siltstone...

[Unome]

The real question is whose bright idea is it to have student trying to differentiate between Shale and Mudstone/siltstone...

It's not that impossible... (ok it's pretty hit-or-miss without actual samples)

[ScottMaurer19]

The real question is whose bright idea is it to have student trying to differentiate between Shale and Mudstone/siltstone...

It's not that impossible... (ok it's pretty hit-or-miss without actual samples)

In theory it's not that difficult but yeah samples make it usually very hard to tell. If you gave me a sample of both at the same time with obvious distinguishing characteristics it might be more possible but ESs will have to be very careful with the samples chosen.

[ScottMaurer19]

Any idea why they have annularia and calamites in different genuses? Unless I misses something they are the same plant...

[Unome]

Any idea why they have annularia and calamites in different genuses? Unless I misses something they are the same plant...

Sure, but fossil genera are already constructed without much of the taxonomic information that goes into extant taxa. I know they were originally thought to be separate - I don't know how the formal taxonomy for the genera are right now though. It's possible that both are still considered valid taxa.

[ScottMaurer19]

Any idea why they have annularia and calamites in different genuses? Unless I misses something they are the same plant...

Sure, but fossil genera are already constructed without much of the taxonomic information that goes into extant taxa. I know they were originally thought to be separate - I don't know how the formal taxonomy for the genera are right now though. It's possible that both are still considered valid taxa.

If I remember correctly in 2015 rules they were separate, 2016 called the same genus just different parts of the same plant, and now they are back to being different again XD

[UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F]

Any idea why they have annularia and calamites in different genuses? Unless I misses something they are the same plant...

I believe annularia is for the flower pattern. Historically, they were considered different (being fossils and all), but now it is believed they are the same plant. Thus, we have organ taxa.

Edit: whoops, must have been looking at an old version of the thread

[Unome]

Any idea why they have annularia and calamites in different genuses? Unless I misses something they are the same plant...

Sure, but fossil genera are already constructed without much of the taxonomic information that goes into extant taxa. I know they were originally thought to be separate - I don't know how the formal taxonomy for the genera are right now though. It's possible that both are still considered valid taxa.

If I remember correctly in 2015 rules they were separate, 2016 called the same genus just different parts of the same plant, and now they are back to being different again XD

Ah, I remember that change. No idea why they changed it back. It could just be for simplicity in formatting, since the list is rather cleaner than it used to be.

[ScottMaurer19]

Sure, but fossil genera are already constructed without much of the taxonomic information that goes into extant taxa. I know they were originally thought to be separate - I don't know how the formal taxonomy for the genera are right now though. It's possible that both are still considered valid taxa.

If I remember correctly in 2015 rules they were separate, 2016 called the same genus just different parts of the same plant, and now they are back to being different again XD

Ah, I remember that change. No idea why they changed it back. It could just be for simplicity in formatting, since the list is rather cleaner than it used to be.

I liked the old list better because it was on one page