Talk:Eocene–Oligocene extinction event

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Eocene–Oligocene extinction event 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.

Extinction High‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyedit

This needs extensive editing, both for grammar (e.g., "One of which" should not be a new sentence) and for technical accuracy. It would be useful to identify more of the forms which became extinct at this time -- off the top of my head, the champsosaurs, sebecosuchids, multituberculates, dinocerates, most creodonts, numerous other mammal families and orders. Archaeoceti is not a "subgenus" but a suborder. The tag should not be Archaeology but Paleontology or Historical geology.172.132.205.251 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

I suggest to merge from section Eocene#Grande Coupure and reorganize the two texts per wikipedia:Summary style. - Altenmann >t 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I belive it would be better suited to merge this into the Eocene#Grande Coupure and rename that section to E-O Extinction EventWas God stoned when he created the Universe? (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North America (Alaska) collided with Asia (Kamchatka), sealing off Arctic Ocean, and severing deep-sea circulation currents?

c.34Mya, North America would have been creeping westwards, over the remnants of the ancient Farallon oceanic plate (e.g. Kula, Juan de Fuca); and Asia would have been creeping eastwards, over the Pacific oceanic plate. The arrival of Asian fauna into North America resembles the Great American Interchange, between the Americas, when they were connected, by the Panama landbridge, c.3Mya; as well as other interchanges between India & Asia 50Mya, and Africa & Asia 30Mya. So, c.30Mya, Africa collided with Asia, sealing off the Mediterranean; and Asia collided with North America, sealing off the Arctic ocean. Animals dispersed across the new landbridges. And global cooling ensued, perhaps relating the re-shuffling of landmasses, and ocean currents? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Improvements to Article (History of scientific understanding of extinction, impacts in other countries, differing hypotheses about causes)

This Wikipedia article is useful in some respects, as it outlines the basic definition of the extinction and a brief, simple summary of what occurred, but it may also be confusing and misleading to some readers who don’t have an extensive working knowledge of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events. An effective Wikipedia article should be factual, and always use citations to back up information. These citations should be from the most credible sources possible, and updated frequently. While this article cites some of its facts from reputable sources, not all facts are cited, and not all citations are updated. Secondly, the article should be clear, presenting the information in a format that is easy to read and understand. While the article is unbiased, and well-written for the most part, it is not always clear. It could be divided into sections to make it more accessible. Next, it should be organized. The information should be presented in a manner that flows logically, without leaving anything out. This article is missing some important information, which I highlight below, and is not always clearly organized. An article should also be current. While this article features some current developments in the research of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events, it doesn't always follow up or update the reader as new information becomes available. Additionally, there is quite a bit of research that is not mentioned in this article, but appears in scholarly publications. Below, I will explain some of the most important and relevant changes that can be made to improve the article. The Grande Coupure is simply one element of the extinction, not the extinction itself. However, the article contains a disproportionate amount of information on this phenomenon, potentially leading readers to believe it was more widespread than it actually was. The Grande Coupure is a term used to describe the impact of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events in Europe. This is definitely relevant, and much of the current information should remain in the article, but it should not misrepresent the facts of the extinction. Additionally, some of the information about the Grande Coupure is poorly cited or not cited at all. The Grande Coupure section should be edited for the purpose of clarity, and updated with citations from scholarly articles. As of now, it appears disorganized and somewhat difficult to understand. The history of research with respect to the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events is quite important. There are numerous scholarly articles and books which describe the historical understanding of the extinction, and how and why that has evolved over time. For example, the article should explain why the Eocene-Oligocene events were originally grouped into a single mass extinction, and why scientists now understand that not to be the case. The modes of research used to garner information about the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events should also be noted. The article should briefly outline the technological advancements in dating that led to our current understanding of the extinction. Also, the article could benefit from mentioning additional current and developing research on the Eocene-Oligocene. It does mention some current research, but this should be updated and expanded upon. The nature of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events should be highlighted in the article; namely, that the Eocene-Oligocene was not a single event, but consisted of several pulses of warming and cooling before, across, and after the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. This needs to be made clear in order to accurately represent the facts of what occurred. The impact of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events in different geographical areas across the globe should be mentioned. There is already an informative section on the Grande Coupure, or the impact in Europe, but the impacts in North America, Asia, and Australia could also be noted. Little is mentioned about the North American species that went extinct, while much more is mentioned about the extinct European species. The development of Antarctic ice and the Antarctic current should be noted in the article, as they played a role in the climate change that drove the Eocene-Oligocene extinction events. Differing hypotheses of the extinction causes should be added to the article. Organized sections should outline the extraterrestrial, volcanic, and tectonic/climatic hypotheses. The article already mentions some of these; however, they aren’t organized in a clear way. Allisonmb (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

threshold

I think "threshold" in the intro should be "lower limit", as nothing seems to have been “kicked-off” by reaching the threshold. At least, not according to the article. MBG02 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible relation with Rubielos de Cérida and Azuaga Impact Craters

Sorry for no editing, but the more I read, more evidence of an Impact Crater dated between 30-40 millions years I find. In this leaflet in Spanish you can read about a 10 km meteorite fragmented in some fragments: https://www.solosequenosenada.com/meteorito/docs/0-Azuara/EVENTO_DE_AZUARA_5.pdf

It's Polemic as there is no consensus, I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubielos_de_la_C%C3%A9rida_impact_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azuara_impact_structure

Pichun (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eocene–Oligocene extinction event → Late Eocene–Early Oligocene extinctions – Considering the Eocene-Oligocene extinction phases to be a single extinction event has been well-known to be a misnomer, since the timing and extinction rates varied by continent, with some continents having minimal turnover rates compared to others like Europe (Grande Coupure) and Asia (Mongolian Remodelling). There is no one common term for the extinctions overall, so "Late Eocene–Early Oligocene extinctions" should do. It and the Quaternary extinction event pages should be moved to new titles for more accurate names. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using the word "to" instead of a dash, or flipping it around to something like "Extinction events in the late Eocene and early Oligocene" or "Extinction events in the Eocene–Oligocene transition? Also, I wonder if "early" should use lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one might work, but my biggest hesitation is that not all extinctions within the latest Eocene or earliest Oligocene might be considered part of an extinction event depending on the continent. In continents like North America or South America where turnover rates were small/average, it might be harder to make a case that they're extinction events if they were not labeled as such by other researchers. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then simply "Extinctions ..." rather than "Extinction events ...". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (and would oppose moves for the other Quaternary extinction event pages as well). "(older geologic time unit) - (newer geologic time unit) (Big WhizBang Still Detectable From The Human Era) event" is generally how these things are named (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME in the relevant scholarly literature). It's understood that the singular "event" is meant in the sense of geologic time, so sure, it's a mega-event that crosses thousands of years that gets perceived as just one event when reduced to a layer of strata in the geologic record. And the argument that some continents were less affected seems weak to me - so what? Why would that imply this article should be renamed? SnowFire (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons given by SnowFire; this request appears to misinterpret the usage of "event" in this context. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]