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
Talk:Douglas Lake Member 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
Douglas Lake Member is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This page is mostly edited by Gregory Retallack, and he created articles of genera from this site, Cestites, Casterlorum, Janegraya, Dollyphyton and Edwardsiphyton. Other than Cestites, these genera are described by Retallack himself. Retallack is, although great paleobotanical researcher, also known from fringe theory such as interpreting Ediacaran biota as terrestrial lichen. These genera are what he claimed in 2019[1] as "Ordovician plant fossils". If this were true, several studies would have highlighted this as important, such as phylogenic analysis of moss, even though it was published in 2019. However, if you look it up on Google Scholar, you'll see that this paper has actually only been cited in 12 articles so far, three of which are Retallack himself. As I write in this page, 2022 study questioned its affinity as plant fossils,[2] and 2023 study agreed to this.[3] When I added this 2023 paper to this page, Retallack edited to "The interpretation of these fossil have been considered controversial by palynologists but accepted by a botanist" and added this reference[4] as from botanist. This is review of Retallack's book by Egbert Leigh, which also includes about Ediacaran lichen theory, but keep in mind Leigh is not researcher of Paleozoic plants, he is more like modern and Cenozoic evolution researcher instead (and infamous for sexual harassment). Then I noticed 2023 paper I cited is originally from 2022 paper, which is done by Dianne Edwards who is paleobotanist, better at researching Paleozoic plants than Leigh. In other words, Retallack's edits were clearly done arbitrarily to favor his own research. Seeing how he misinterpreted beehive to Dickinsonia,[5] is there really a need for separate articles for these genera? The contents of the pages for these genera are roughly the same, and they only include photos of fossils in favor of recognition as plants. If anything, I feel it would be more convenient to compile a simple interpretation of these fossils on this page. This research is certainly interesting, but unfortunately I feel that it has not been studied enough to merit attention. (Just for fair, he supported affinity of Cestites as liverwort at 2001,[6] there is still single research used Retallack's one for bryophyte age[7]) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
