Scioly.org

does anybody know for sure what the concretion fossils were??

also waz the thing at station 2 a jelly fish

Deeisenberg wrote:They should extend the list if anything. Honestly the list is relatively short and the ID is too easy as is, they should add more brachiopods and trilobites to the list. The list however probably will change little if at all.

Yeah, the brachiopods and trilobites very easy to ID, simply because each genus is very distinct from each other. There's no way you can mix up Rafinesquina and Mucrospirifer. The trilobites do look a little closer though. Not that they need to put fossils that are almost indistinguishable, but more could be better.

gneissisnice wrote:

quizbowl13 wrote:kinda the same with us, lllazar.
we usually get top 3 at regionals, and in the past years, we've been able to crack the top 10 at states, and we even got 5th this year! but its new york, its almost impossible to outseat F-M and WM, plus Columbia and Spackenkill arent that far behind.

Actually, WM's only been to Nationals recently for the past two years. For a while, it was FM and Spackenkill that were the favorites. Things can change =) (though hopefully, it's FM finally going down, not WM. Nothing against you FM but....yes, Im bitter).

I believe Spackenkill only went twice. Before that, it was always either you guys or M-E.

ETA: More vertebrates, please!

I think that fossils should be broken up as follows:
Three years of rocks and minerals.
Two of fossil invertebrates
One or two of fossil vertebrates.
This would allow more in-depth questions, and more specialization.

Not too shabby, paleo.

paleonaps95 wrote:I think that fossils should be broken up as follows:
Three years of rocks and minerals.
Two of fossil invertebrates
One or two of fossil vertebrates.
This would allow more in-depth questions, and more specialization.

I disagree. Can you imagine test writers across the country trying to create tests solely about vertebrates? The vast majority of the tests wouldn't have a single real specimen. Also, since the event would have to be more in depth, it would be so much harder to find event supervisors with enough knowledge and experience to write and run a competition.

In addition, under your logic, shouldn't rocks and minerals be split into an event about rocks and an event about minerals?

amerikestrel wrote:

paleonaps95 wrote:I think that fossils should be broken up as follows:
Three years of rocks and minerals.
Two of fossil invertebrates
One or two of fossil vertebrates.
This would allow more in-depth questions, and more specialization.

I disagree. Can you imagine test writers across the country trying to create tests solely about vertebrates? The vast majority of the tests wouldn't have a single real specimen. Also, since the event would have to be more in depth, it would be so much harder to find event supervisors with enough knowledge and experience to write and run a competition.

In addition, under your logic, shouldn't rocks and minerals be split into an event about rocks and an event about minerals?

Exactly. The vertebrates are rare enough that the only actual fossils you'd see would be fish. Furthermore, you miss out on some time periods (anything pre-Devonian, really), and there's just not that much on the vertebrates. Though dinosaurs are the most famous fossils, the invertebrates are really the most useful fossils.

While the specimen problem is a very real one, I don't think you can say there's "not that much on the vertebrates." You'd just have to do a whole lot more anatomy, and maybe cladistics. This is not to say that I think it is a good idea.

I know where this is going, gneiss. I'm sorry for suggesting this.
However, I don't see the importance of having real fossils there. Pictures, diagrams, specimens- I don't see a difference.
I think specializing would help get away from basic ID and life history stuff. We could have much more in depth material that would make the event more interesting.
Plus, there's a reason that I made vertebrates have only one year. They're my favorites, but I think more than a year at a time would be too much.

paleonaps95 wrote:I know where this is going, gneiss. I'm sorry for suggesting this.
However, I don't see the importance of having real fossils there. Pictures, diagrams, specimens- I don't see a difference.
I think specializing would help get away from basic ID and life history stuff. We could have much more in depth material that would make the event more interesting.
Plus, there's a reason that I made vertebrates have only one year. They're my favorites, but I think more than a year at a time would be too much.

it was a good idea, but too many flaws.
its too bad that my last year of scioly will be without these lovely creatures