Talk:Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation

Paleobiota help

Code

This section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.

Premade rowspans:

| rowspan="2" |

| rowspan="3" |

| rowspan="4" |

| rowspan="5" |

| rowspan="6" |

| rowspan="7" |

Replacement headings for "Presence" column

! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material

Replacement headings for "Taxa" column

Cell background colors

The background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.

Color key Taxon Reclassified taxon Taxon falsely reported as present Dubious taxon or junior synonym Ichnotaxon Ootaxon Morphotaxon		Notes Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; crossed out taxa are discredited.

Red for reclassified and preoccupied

|style="background:#fbdddb;" |

Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:

|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |

Dark grey for discredited taxa:

|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |

Peach for Ichnotaxa:

|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |

Light blue for Ootaxa:

|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |

Light green for Morphotaxa:

|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |

Reference for (Johnson, 1997)

What is (Johnson, 1997) a reference to, in the plants section? I was hoping to locate the original paper but the only reference I can find for this source is Wikipedia. 2601:342:100:9000:216F:6646:C655:DB1A (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hell Creek Mosasaur

Mikail2009 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Apparently a new mosasaurine from the Hell Creek Formation in North Dakota was discovered last month.[1] It might belong to Mosasaurus or Prognathodon. Anyway can I pls add it?

No. It was added in August. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Questions for flora

I have refreshed and updated the table of Flora of the Hell Creek Formation, mainly based on Johnson 2002, and am still working on it. It's not complete just yet. I have a few questions for this page. Are the sections with classifications of plants above the Flora of the Hell Creek Formation table really necessary? Since they are already mentioned in the table, I don't think they are necessary for this page as it's already a part of the Hell Creek Formation in a separate page. If you guys want to keep them, then I can change them a bit.

Are all images of modern plants necessary? I can understand that they are examples but I also think that they may be misleading the people who have no knowledge of the Hell Creek plants into believing that they were present in the Late Cretaceous. For this reason, I'd suggest that all images be removed and replaced with new images of actual fossils. Is it possible that I can upload all photographs of each morphotype I took from the collections? Even if I'm not able to do so, will it be possible to upload the images from the papers?

One more thing... do you guys want to keep the pollen on the table? I honestly don't think it's necessary because there are so many morphotaxa and the majority of them belong to the megafossil plants — a few of which we are able to assign to megafossil plants. They are more of microfossils than megafossils, and this page contains megafossils. Personally, I don't think that we have to classify each of them on the table as it will be made endlessly, and I doubt that the majority of fossil pollen will ever be determinate with confidence. TyRex Paleobotany (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I would vote for removal of both the "overview" section for the reason you mention, and the modern images. If you have access to images of Hell Creek flora that are compatible with uploading to commons, they are MOST welcome, the more fossil flora images the better. I would also suggest moving the pollen& spores to a palynology specific table where the notes section can discuss affinities and species clearly without overwhelming the megaflora.--Kevmin § 20:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@TyRex Paleobotany: Additionally, breaking the megaflora table up into phylogenetic subsections as the vertebrates have been would be very helpful. There is no reason to keep all the plants lumped into a single table when the two solitary ankylosaur species are given a full separate table with commentary heading sentence and and stand alone subheading.--Kevmin § 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a megaflora table and palynology table. I think for now we can move the pollen and spores to a palynology specific table and keep the megaflora table. It'd take a while for me to separate each megaflora table into phylogenetic subsections, since I'm new to this Wikipedia edit. Unfortunately, there is not so many published papers on botanical affinities for Hell Creek plants, meaning that the majority will remain in a single table.

Plus, I have many photos of Hell Creek fossil leaves I took from two collections at Smithsonian museum and Denver museum, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to upload those to Commons without permission? TyRex Paleobotany (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TyRex Paleobotany: There are at least 5 tables as we have right now at the least, Pinophyta, Bennettales, Ginkgophyta, Angiosperms, and pteridophyta. Personal photographs of specimens in a collections room setting are not copyrightable, and as the Smithsonian collections are a national collection, there isn't any reason you cant upload them under a CC-By license --Kevmin § 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers! I will upload some of my photographs I took from the collections. I will keep this in mind when I update the phylogenetic subsections in the future. TyRex Paleobotany (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Kevmin that the overview section can be removed along with the modern images. If any help is needed splitting up the table into the relevant groups I would also be willing to step in. Talking about the overview section as a whole, I must say I also do not see its value on the main Hell Creek Formation page, and think that it can also be removed there, along with the weird bullet-pointed list (only mentioning this here because you've also done work there). The Morrison Man (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Heres a helpful 2010 article detailing a Hell Creek Florule in Montana thats gives better morphotype designations and information, Johnson 2002 is rather taxonomically dated.--Kevmin § 23:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up Arens and Allen 2010 paper! I totally forgot to add it and Wilson et al 2021 to the list while I quickly edited. I know that this paper gives better morphotype designations, but my concerns are that this paper has some mistakes on the assignment of morphotypes (e.g. "Artocarpus" sp. which is actually Leepierceia preartocarpoides), and the authors focused on a single locality in Montana to collect megaflora specimens to determine the climate of Hell Creek, rather than the whole Hell Creek flora. This analysis is based on only 13 morphotypes which is too small sample for CLAMP.

But Arens & Allen 2010 and Wilson et. al. 2021 papers used Johnson's holomorphotype system (1989 & 2002). Johnson 1989 has described 200 taxa of Hell Creek Formation, many more than 2010 and 2021 papers. Johnson's holomorphotype system has caught all of fossil plants from throughout the Hell Creek Formation rather than a single locality. TyRex Paleobotany (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind with wiki is that we can ONLY report on what has already been published. If Kirks got a paper documenting 200 taxa (Keeping in mind that morphotypes=/=taxa for paleobotany, what with organ taxa and plants like Sassafras with multiple leaf morphologies) that should be included. If kirks system is mostly used inhouse at the institutions he's been at, we are limited to only the named taxa in the literature. In this respect, the fact that Arens & Allen 2010 only looked at one locality is irrelevant to it being taxa reported for the HCF, and with a specific locality involved (ala the vertebrate tables). --Kevmin § 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm very well familiar with morphotype=/=taxa for paleobotany. Which is why I prefer the Johnson 2002 and 1989 papers which conservatively catalogue the whole flora. And I'm looking to include some more publications that have described taxa but the majority is assigned an alphanumeric identifier. TyRex Paleobotany (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Alphanumeric labeling of types will work since we have the referencing that they come from and notes sections to give more clarity on suggested affinities. If your not comfortable with wiki-table syntax, I'm willing to help with splitting up the megatable.--Kevmin § 21:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You can go ahead and split up the megatable into five main groups you mentioned earlier. I will be busy for the next few weeks, though I may return to the Wikipedia page on occasion. TyRex Paleobotany (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)