Talk:Azilal Group

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;" |

Is "Azilal Group" a recognised stratigraphic unit?

Can specific sources be provided that "Azilal Group" or a french language equivalent is a recognised stratigraphic term? The paper on the stratigraphy of the Toundounte Continental Series states that no top is known and that it is covered by alluvium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to merging the articles in principle, most sources say the TCS the Azilal and Wazzant Formations are lateral equivalents, but I want sources that verify that the term is used and recognised, especially as almost all literature on the topic is in french. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Allain & Karin (2010): "The small vulcanodontid sauropod Tazoudasaurus from the Early Jurassic of Morocco is represented by at least six juvenile to adult individuals. They were recovered in the Azilal Formation (Toarcian to Early Aalenian age) of the Toundoute continental series of Ouarzazate Province." Was cited on the Abstract that would end being the article "Peyer, K., & Allain, R. (2010). A reconstruction of Tazoudasaurus naimi (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the late Early Jurassic of Morocco. Historical Biology, 22(1-3), 134-141" presented on the 1er Congrès International sur la Paléontologie des Vertébrés du Nord de l’Afrique, the modified on the final version, where only the Toundoute continental series appears. The most recent cite of Tazoudasaurus was done by Holwerda & Pol, who said: "Tazoudasaurus naimi was found in the High Atlas Mountains in Morocco, North Africa, from the Azilal/Wazzant Formation, which is thought to be Toarcian to Aalenian in age, with Tazoudasaurus coming most probably from the Toarcian layers". Pol has worked with Morocco Strata, so he probably know what he says. There isn´t a clear consensus to where ends Azilal/Wazzant/Toundoute, and most of recent works fuse all them. Here, aren´t fused at all, only mentioned on a same article. Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I read all those sources before you sent them. On reflection I agree that TCS should be merged into this article, but the article should be renamed to the Azilal Formation and the lead should read "The Azilal Formation, also known as the Wazzant Formation or the Toundoute Continental Series is a geological formation in Morocco" or similar, and should elaborate on the regions where the three names are used in relation to each other. Also, if you are creating long articles you should really be using Your sandbox to polish up the article first before you publish it to mainspace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I don't consider paleontologic sources authoritive of formation or group names. Usually the Geological Survey of the country defines those where paleontologists tend to use outdated and incidental names to refer to fossil sites. Don't merge anything, especially not the groups and formations, it is important to separate them like in any other country. Why is there a sudden push for merging articles that need to be separate? Tisquesusa (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, As far as I know "Toundoute Continental Series" isn't an official stratigraphic unit anyway and is merely an informal term for the sequence. The problem with "official units" is that most countries don't have a stratigraphic database like the BGS, USGS and Australia do so that all names are effectively unofficial. We both had experience with this last year with the Early Cretaceous stratigraphy of Spain where there were multiple contradictory terminologies for sequences, and deciding which one is "valid" is ultimately arbitrary. Geology much like life is messy and defies easy classification, and one person's member is anothers formation etc. Ultimately I think a detailed history of research is really needed to unravel this, as stratigraphy from the 1980's is likely to be outdated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha thanks, I don't have the time as before, but if there are clients who want decent geology pages, my inbox is open. I have added three useful publications to High Atlas#Geology publications, which should serve. That is why it is always better to start with the basin, or in this case foldbelt, build the bibliography and you can fill in the articles about groups and formations much better. @Yewtharaptor: can you rework the citations in bibliography format and with links. Now it is useless to reference as there are no links behind them. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)