Talk:Proterozoic

Geology C‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Proterozoic 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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Proterozoic Era was definitely from 2.5 billion years ago to 600 mya. There was an oxygen build-up on Earth and there were the first multi-cellular life forms on our planet. 4.248.84.96 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2005

I completley agree too!!! 4.248.84.96 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2005

Stratigraphic Nomenclature

I made some changes in keeping with accepted stratigraphic nomenclature. I also reworded the third paragraph (for the better, I hope), added a blurb on the Cyrogenian and Ediacaran Periods and added some links. I am teaching a course in Historical Geology this semester (first time in 15 years) and am finding Wikipedia very useful in filling in all of the picky little facts that I need for my lectures but have long since forgotten! Jay Gregg (talk | contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2006

Oxygen Atmosphere When?

From the article: "The transition to an oxygenated atmosphere during the Mesoproterozoic."

However, the Mesoproterozoic doesn't mention this, the Paleoproterozoic era article dates the Oxygen Catastrophe in the Siderian period. So which is it? Jeff schiller 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Build-up of Oxygen

"most accumulation ceased after 1.9 billion years ago, either due to an increase in oxygen or a more thorough mixing of the oceanic water column.(Stanley 324)" right, accumulation stoped at 1.9 Gyr and the second part of the sentence is fine but how an increase in Oxygen can stop accumulation ? - phe 10:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm,I guess it's an increase of oxygen in see water ? - phe 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- What that section means is that BIF probably stopped accumulating because all the unoxidized iron that could react, did; for instance, if you added a great excess of acetic acid (vinegar) to calcium bicarbonate (baking soda), once the soda fully reacted with the necessary amount of acid to form sodium acetate, you'd eventually just end up with a whole of unreacted acid carrying a tiny bit of sodium acetate in solution. Same deal here; an excess of oxygen would eventually "use up" the iron so it was "free" to accumulate without getting bound up in iron oxide.Erimus (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand chemical sink but I'd trouble to get a consistent figure between this section and Oxygen Catastrophe which show an increase around 1.85 Ga then accumulation stopped in atmosphere, so new chemical sink was available which replaced BIF. That's unclear from the section in this article. - phe 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken reference

In the references, #7 is an LPSC abstract about the Tharsis rise on Mars. I assume there is a typo in the link. Can someone please fix the reference? Proterovenus (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)proterovenus[reply]

What event marks its beginning?

What is the defining event for the ending of the Archaean and the beginning of the Proterozoic? -- 77.189.29.100 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize your question is kind of old and the article is over 30 years old, but maybe a starting point. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040195184901938 Geodude86 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stromatolithe Picture

This picture should be replaced. The Bolivian stromatolithes were falsely dated as Proterozoic. They are actually Cretaceous! This is also mentioned in the picture infos.2A02:1206:45A9:3E80:4C2:1203:E312:E8E6 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Proterozoic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702223746/http://www.palaeos.com/Proterozoic/Proterozoic.htm to http://www.palaeos.com/Proterozoic/Proterozoic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First life statement

The statement at the end of the intro about edicarian fossils being the "first obvious fossil evidence of life on earth" seems incorrect considering stromatolites dated to a few billion years old at least. Geodude86 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years late to the party, but ... agreed. The Ediacarian did not produce the first fossils. It did not even produce the first multicellular fossils. Would be nice to rephrase this. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]