Scioly.org

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote: By the almighty wisdom of the rules council

They are all identifiable classes. Reread 3.d.ii.

I disagree. It just says "taxonomic classification". I assume that means classifying identifiable specimens according to the taxonomy on the list.

Sorry, I meant to say 3.d.i, with my point being that non-numbered taxa on the list such as Gastropoda can be asked as ID.

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Unome wrote: They are all identifiable classes. Reread 3.d.ii.

I disagree. It just says "taxonomic classification". I assume that means classifying identifiable specimens according to the taxonomy on the list.

Sorry, I meant to say 3.d.i, with my point being that non-numbered taxa on the list such as Gastropoda can be asked as ID.

Hmm it says "Numbers indicate that members of that taxon rank should be identifiable to that level" so I'm not sure actually

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote: I disagree. It just says "taxonomic classification". I assume that means classifying identifiable specimens according to the taxonomy on the list.

Sorry, I meant to say 3.d.i, with my point being that non-numbered taxa on the list such as Gastropoda can be asked as ID.

Hmm it says "Numbers indicate that members of that taxon rank should be identifiable to that level" so I'm not sure actually

Your interpretation would prevent asking, for example, to identify a specimen as a brachiopod. I suspect that's not the intention. That statement on the list is a little ambiguous though.

For those interested, UGA posted their invitational tests, which include the Fossils test that I wrote.

Link to tests folder

The high score was around 70 points, with the typical quick drop-off near the top.

What would be some good resources
to find information for each genus, class, order, etc?

Rock&Roll92 wrote:What would be some good resources
to find information for each genus, class, order, etc?

Honestly, just look everything up. I haven't found a database that even has them all. Go to the library. Check out field guides. There's also info on the wiki page if you go the Fossils page and then click Fossils List. The information is pretty scattershot.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Rock&Roll92 wrote:What would be some good resources
to find information for each genus, class, order, etc?

Honestly, just look everything up. I haven't found a database that even has them all. Go to the library. Check out field guides. There's also info on the wiki page if you go the Fossils page and then click Fossils List. The information is pretty scattershot.

Adding on to this, I personally just use any website I can find. Don't worry if you can't get all the information, some of the invertebrates are really hard to find resources for. Also, a good field guide to use in addition to the internet is Auduobon's or Smithsonian.

Rock&Roll92 wrote:What would be some good resources
to find information for each genus, class, order, etc?

PDFs for textbooks can be helpful along with blogs and sites managed by fossil enthusiasts

On a related note to the Ammonoidea problem a week ago, why does Superorder Selachimorpha have specific genuses and is numbered? Furthermore, why is Genus Carcharocles numbered when it has a specific species under it? The note at the bottom of the fossils list says that "numbers indicate that members of that taxon rank should be identifiable to that level." Because genuses under Selachimorpha are numbered, doesn't that mean that the 52) Superorder Selachimorpha is redundant?

dxu46 wrote:On a related note to the Ammonoidea problem a week ago, why does Superorder Selachimorpha have specific genuses and is numbered? Furthermore, why is Genus Carcharocles numbered when it has a specific species under it? The note at the bottom of the fossils list says that "numbers indicate that members of that taxon rank should be identifiable to that level." Because genuses under Selachimorpha are numbered, doesn't that mean that the 52) Superorder Selachimorpha is redundant?

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. If you're able to ID them anyway, it's a moot point.