Talk:Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation

Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 4, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Distinction from the "Green Series" of Germany[edit]

Much of the Paleobiota present here is from what is usually referred to as the "Green Series" of NE Germany (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) A good account account of the unit is given here. Stumpf 2016 states that:"In Poland, the “Green Series” is absent and replaced by the Ciechocinek Formation, which represents a shallow, brackish-marine accumula-tion deposited in the Polish Basin" which implies that the units are distinct and deserve to be treated separately. I think a split is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this is adequately explained in the 2018 document, It should be mentioned in the lead though to avoid confusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: About that, I found that already in the 1967, Jurkiewiczowa ("Lias zachodniego obrzeżenia Gór Świętokrzyskich i jego paralelizacja z liasem Wyżyny Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej") prove that the "Estheria Series" of Pomerania is identical to the Green Series. The Estheria layers is where the Ciechocinek main profile is found now. In words of Pieńkowski: Close to Mecklenburg, in Pomerania, we have borehole Mechowo – and this is the lithostratotype for the Ciechocinek Fm. The Lower Toarcian age of the Ciechocinek Fm. is well documented there (by biostratigraphy – megaspores – and chemostratigraphy – carbon isotope major excursion, coeval to T-OAE). Similarly, we have biostratigraphical documentation for this formation across Poland. It is clear, that this formation continues to NE Germany (e.g. boreholes Wolgast, Barth, Grimmen outcrop) Ciechocinek Fm. in Grimmen and Dobbertin is perfectly mapable. Pieńkowski Grzegorz has already an answer to the claim to divide the Green Series into another unit, claiming for a definitive dissolve of the Green Series, Estheria Series and other old names. Also note that is oficially accepted since 2018 in Germany. Sorry for this late reply, I didn´t return to work with this region until recently Yewtharaptor (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical[edit]

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Miniapolis 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Seppo koponeni.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]