Scioly.org

ScottMaurer19 wrote:

Unome wrote:

ScottMaurer19 wrote: 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

Same, it meant the rules could fit on the back of the sheet protector

I and my team are looking for the proper way to format the Fossils Binder. We don't have any idea how the pages should be formatted and where to get the information from. Can someone please help us out with this.

Etan wrote:I and my team are looking for the proper way to format the Fossils Binder. We don't have any idea how the pages should be formatted and where to get the information from. Can someone please help us out with this.

Take a look at the first page of thread for my formatting tips. As to where to get the information from, anything goes: Wikipedia, your local library, your favorite search engine, etc. etc.

Can Rocks and Minerals help

jlordhe wrote:Can Rocks and Minerals help

If not anything else, it proves your interest in geology

jlordhe wrote:Can Rocks and Minerals help

It helps when they ask about the rocks the fossils formed in or the formation environment, but other than that there is no direct correlation between the materials.

So I was studying a bit and noticed that the classes for the brachiopods on sites contradict what it says on the list. It says that inarticulata and articulata have been superceded by what I assume to be lingulata and rhynchonellata. If I were asked on a test to give the classes of one of these specimens should I put what the list has down or the sites?

Bread wrote:So I was studying a bit and noticed that the classes for the brachiopods on sites contradict what it says on the list. It says that inarticulata and articulata have been superceded by what I assume to be lingulata and rhynchonellata. If I were asked on a test to give the classes of one of these specimens should I put what the list has down or the sites?

I don't believe they'll ask about that stuff since taxonomy changes so much, but I would recommend knowing the history of the taxonomy. I doubt it would matter which one you put in the end though.

Okay, thank you.

Bread wrote:So I was studying a bit and noticed that the classes for the brachiopods on sites contradict what it says on the list. It says that inarticulata and articulata have been superceded by what I assume to be lingulata and rhynchonellata. If I were asked on a test to give the classes of one of these specimens should I put what the list has down or the sites?

The list should always win out.

Classification is a tricky beast and there's often a lot of disagreement about names and such, or recent changes. The list is what the event is testing you on and it would be very unfair for someone to mark you wrong for using the nomenclature on the list. It might not be a terrible idea for you to also just write down any name changes just in case someone decides to ask a question about it, but I would think that that's very uncommon.

Basically, never ever put a name that isn't on the list for ID because you absolutely WILL be marked wrong unless the question specifically asks for an alternate name, which is unlikely (unless it's asking about a common name or something).