Hello, Valich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Vsmith00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing great. Some may complain that your edits are too technical, but I like 'em and we'll add clarification later for more general readership if we need to. Sure would be nice to have at least a sketch map of the Superior and other areas. Don't know of any that are free to use on wiki - will do some looking around. Trouble is school starts next week and I'll be torturing chemistry students again - less wiki time, my summer went fast :-)
Couple of pointers: I notice that your edits are all marked as minor - which probably means you have the box in your preferences checked for marking all edits as minor. Would be good to uncheck that, as minor edits are supposedly only for spelling, punct., grammar and link fixes - and most of your edits aren't minor. Also, as you may have noticed, I've been doing some reducing overlinking - Wiki Manual of Style suggests only linking to another page one time - or at least only once per section for a long article. No biggy. Cheers, Vsmith23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cratons are subdivided by domains, subdivisions, blocks, margins, belts, rifts, crust formation eras, volcanism, and proto-cratons. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how to organize these seperate subsections of the articles into the most coherent way for the reader. The more I become familiar with their evolution and the compositional parts, the more I'll be able to go back and paraphrase the quotations so that the articles flow better. Still, as the craton articles stand right now, I know of no other more complete informative source that attempts to piece it all together. Thanks for your encouraging words, advice, editing and proof reading. By the way, what was your primary area of interest at UofA? Cheers! Don Valich00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copper. I was briefly a porphyry copper "expert" and then "boom" - US copper died due to the big mines in Chile ... I was involved in the development stages of the Red Mountain deposit just south of Patagonia when "suddenly" in 1977 it became uneconomic. I wonder what is happening to it now with the recent upswing in copper price? Vsmith23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith: I would appreciate any comments that you have on the Superior craton article because once I start on the Slave craton again, it will be much more indepth and harder to organize. I'll be entering an uncharted domain trying to piece it all together. I also start school in two weeks so it will be a side venture, but with great dedication and interest. I feel that I am putting together the results of the researchers out in the field in order to make sense of it all. I strongly agree in what we are doing. Comments please.Valich06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will give it another read. I don't always read for content when proofing. Still hoping to find a map source - maybe I can create one - don't expect anything soon or great :-)
I see you made a stub for syenogranite - after I re-linked it to syenite. Guess i'd best change it back. Also, left a note at Talk:Leucogranite regarding a missing element, I don't have access to the ref to fix it. Cheers, Vsmith23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, think I confused things there :-) I should have said Patagonia, Arizona (about 15 km or so north of Mexico) - not the one in Argentina. And the big copper mines in Chile and elsewhere in South America caused a decline in copper prices in the 70s which lead to the closing down of most of Arizona's copper mines.
Don't worry too much about those red links for various terms, red links inspire others to write the article and make 'em blue. As for syenogranite, I hadn't redirected the article - just the link in the Churchill craton article. Your redirect to syenite is OK for now - until we can write more than just a stub. Vsmith02:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I placed the map on all the craton articles that are listed on the map. I'm a bit perplexed as to how to present a division of the North American craton and the Canadian Shield into the individual cratons that accreted to form it, yet still maintain their integrity. The same problem exists with the Wyoming craton and the accretion of the Mojave, Yavapai, and Mazatlan Provinces and the Grenville Belt. In the former case, the accretion of these provinces contributed to the origin of the Grand Canyon, yet some geologists refer to the entire area as the Wyoming craton? These are issues that I have to research to find a happy medium so as not to cause any conflicting views, yet still present the historical sequence of events and delineate the stratigraphy. I need to consult with other geologists who are researching the Grand Canyon lower 2.0 Ga Visnu Group to get the contemporary views on this accretionary process and how they refer to the accretioned continental landmasses. No one is referring to them as cratons.Valich03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick helpful response. I'm already in the sandbox experimenting with the codes. I think it be easier for me to just make one than to worry about the copyright restrictions.Valich00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edits! If/when you add new info, please cite that in the wikitext. Journal cites are especially good ones to have. --mav18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. What I was talking about is our meta:Cite/Cite.php functionality where you put <ref> tags around inline cites. I too would like some software that can be used to create diagrams but don't know of any programs that are free. --mav14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that this is a plate (although could quite easily be wrong) - please could you update the article a bit to explain what it is - otherwise many people, myself included, will have no idea what the article is about... Having looked through your edits you're a credit to Wikipedia - keep up the good work! Dave00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dave! I completely revised the shield (geology) article. You have to differentiate the shield from a platform and its basement which could all be said to comprise a plate - or the cratons that partially make up a tectonic plate. Geologically you can interpret a landmass or continental crust with a tectonic interpretation or in a geomorphological interpretation. If you look at the map under the shield (geology) article you can see where the African Shield (sometimes called the Ethiopian Shield) and all the others are located. The shields on this map are in orange and the platforms are violet. The African Shield is on the lower eastern portion of the horn of Africa. If you were to compare this geomorphological map to a plate tectonic map you can see how the two interpretations work. To illustrate what I mean by this, consider the East European Craton. In a geomorphological formula, the East European Craton = the Baltic/Fennoscandian Shields, Ukrainian Shield, and the Voronezh Massif and Russian Platform. But in a tectonic formula, the East European Craton = Fennoscandia + Sarmatia + Volgo-Uralia.
I punctuated the African Shield article and the others as only being a geo-stub, because I just don't have time to research more details for them right now for any completion. I think the shield (geology) article is now complete so I removed the geo-stub label, but of course, as all articles are, it is always open for better revisions. :) Valich 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Valich02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, about you're question on the User Page Help page, I don't the linking of your signature is connected to your new User page. The reason using four tildes no longer links to your user page would most likely be that you have accidentally checked the "Raw Signature" box on your "Preferences" page. If you check that box, you can customize your signature like what some users (including me :) do.
For more help on that you can check out Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature. But right now unchecking the box should make your signature link back to your user page.
Hope that helped. If not feel free to contact me again. Cheers! --snowolfD4( talk / @ )03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I spend tons of time researching these subjects and then writing the articles - sometimes staying up days on end with no sleep - and am still getting used to the wiki "ref" tags. I prefer the APA style better as it creates a permanent citation. But when writing, I just can't put down all those tags and still keep the thoughts going. I'm getting the hang of it though. I suppose it's less distracting for a fast read by the common user. Looks like we have some common interests. Go Wiki! Valich02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't misunderstand. I was thanking you for doing the cites correctly!!!! I too am getting the hang of it, but honestly, I practiced on some really bad articles, and now I'm pretty good at it. And it's amazing how much I've learned about the articles from reading the cites. Of course, you can't believe how many cites had nothing to do with the articles, and I eliminated them. You're doing a great job, and yes Go Wiki!!!!! Orangemarlin02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, but do you actually have any idea what the discussion you were commenting on (from more than 3 months ago) was even about?--Margareta05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three months ago is a drop in the bucket. I'm commenting on what is posted. If you think that the comments posted are too antiquated, then delete them. I've edited articles where messages were left for two years, but, after a year of waiting, the same messager [sic] posted: "Hello? Is anybody out there?" And I was the only one to reply and answer the question (see Talk:Red Panda, but it looks like someone cleaned it up). I may not be able to review these articles again for another three months unless a message is left for me. Other priorities. :) Valich05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except it wasn't an article you were editing, it was a discussion between two individuals, where you clearly had not read the other parts of the discussion (on the Evolution Talk page, now archived, and on Vanished user's Talk page).
And by the way, please do not accuse me of vandalism. I take verification of citations seriously and yours did not check out with what you wrote. At best, your addition was OR.--Margareta06:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're doing that? Then you're not even reading what I post: you're just acting on some sort've ingrained biased impulse. Remenber, science is progressive. Try to be open minded about it, aye? I'm really busy and spend only a small portion of my life editing, checking for vandalism like that, and writing many new article (over 100 now I think?, with way over 500 edits). That has to be included because it is the most up-to-date scientific viewpoint on the subject. Read Lake then comment back. Most of my time I spend researching, reading and working, and that's where I'm going right now. Gotta sleep a little, okay? Cheers Valich07:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful about accusing people of vandalism, especially someone like Margareta who has been editing some of these articles for awhile. I agree with her on this particular edit and reference, it does not substantiate the point being made. Rather than get into a revert war (which will not be pretty), you should take your points to the discussion page. If you gain consensus, then go forward. But there are a lot of smart people editing these articles--you are one of many. Orangemarlin07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said I thought it was vandalism. I didn't accuse anyone. After supplying 7-8 sources, it's a little ridiculous to insert a tag stating {citation needed}. Apparently Margareta believes that all reference sources need to be fully available to everyone for free on the internet in order to be used. Unfortunately, most all journal articles, and books, are not posted online, and available for free to the general public. Doolitle's article is a case in point. He states numerous times in his article that there was no last universal common ancestor. I hope you kept the UCLA Report, Lake's articles and Doolittle's article as references because they contain diagrams of the Ring of Life and further explanations. Doolittle and Yi Chuan directly state this. As I said in the talk section, its unreasonable and innapropriate to post the entire source journal article on Wikipedia, nor can you just keep adding an endless array of citations.
Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals that leads to survival of the fittest, where fitness is measure in the number of offspring produced. Eventually, as the species population changes through time, this can result in the development of new species. New species normally evolve from a common ancestor. Forces that change gene frequencies in a population are natural selection, migration, adaptive radiation, founder effect, bottlenecks, genetic drift, genetic flow, mutations, and gene transfer in unicellular organisms.
As Rivera and Lake (2004) point out: In the microbial world things are different, and various schemes have been devised to take both traditional and molecular approaches to microbial evolution into account. Unknown to Darwin, microbes use two mechanisms of natural variation that disobey the rules of tree-like evolution: lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis. Lateral gene transfer involves the passage of genes among distantly related groups, causing branches in the tree of life to exchange bits of their fabric. Endosymbiosis -- one cell living within another -- gave rise to the double-membrane-bounded organelles of eukaryotic cells: mitochondria and chloroplasts. At the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, a free-living proteobacterium came to reside within an archaebacterially related host. This event involved the genetic union of two highly divergent cell lineages, causing two deep branches in the tree of life to merge outright. Instead of a tree linking life's three deepest branches (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes), they uncover a ring.Valich22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your changes here: They're just a little too dismissive, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, I propose a large new section, dealing with all the things that can muddle with it in detail, e.g. HGT, fusion origin of Eukaryotes, hybridisation, etc. Vanished usertalk11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also simplified the Evolution lead, trying to keep the main point, while not making it sound - which I'm sure you didn't intend, like something out of Baraminology. Being all too aware of the common mmisunderstandings is useful. I've also removed three references, but will re-add them in a revision of the Gene flow section. Vanished usertalk11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common descent is generally accepted by biologists, and a "last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago" is also generally accepted by biologists. But there was no LUCA or LUA in the prebiotic soup, or the early primordial sea. In this sense, without any reference to the inclusive multiple origins, the LUCA theory is innacurate, antiquated and misleading. Also, the origin of life occurred 3.9-4.1 Ga, not 3.5. 3.8 Ga. stromatolites from Cyanobacteria at from Shark Bay, Australia and the biologically processed carbon in the banded iron formations and greenstone belts from [Isua]] in Southwestern Greenland.
The problem of gene transfer in having, or more accuratel, not havin a LUCA is apparent from the numerous studies of bacterial genomes, such as E. coli and Salmonella. Lawrence and Ochman (1998) conclude that, "since diverging from a shared ancestor 100 million years ago, at least 10% of the E. coli genome has been acquired in somewhere in excess of 200 horizontal gene transfer events." Therefore, both E. coli and Salmonella have no LUCD. The further back in time you go in evolutionary divergence, the greater the likelihood that any given gene in a genome has been transferred from another genome and this undermines phylogenetic tree reconstructions at deep divergences. At its deepest level, between primitive cells and more complex cells, between the first biological cells and the appearance of multicellular fungi, plants, and animals, the tree of life is a web, and that web cannot be untangled and rooted in any one LUCD.
Doolittle states: "In general, the current situation concerning the evolutionary "tree of life" is as follows: The conceptual tree-like structure with discrete branches is retained at the top of the eukaryote domain, and also retained is the idea that eukaryotes obtained mitochondria and chloroplasts from bacteria. But the lower parts of the tree are now seen to involve an extensive anastomosis of branches -- branches joining other branches in a complex network of intersecting links -- resulting from extensive horizontal gene transfer of single or multiple genes, the horizontal gene transfer known to be common in unicellular organisms. Thus, the "tree of life" lacks a single organism at its base, and that "the three major domains of life probably arose from a population of primitive cells that differed in their genes."Valich22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and disagree: It is more complicated than LUCA can implied, but the main point, that all life is connected, shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. I think that universal common descent is really usefyul, insofar as it sets up understanding of a lot of key biologcal concepts - the universal genetic code, for instance, and the single origin. There are confounding factors, but the fact we could never find the last universal common ancestor now does not undo the evidence - notably the universal genetic code that allows HGT - of its existance at one point.
I think that trying to explain deep concepts like HGT muddling common descent before the simple ones would just cause misunderstanding, and it's not like LUCA is actually inaccurate, just heavily qualified. Vanished usertalk01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Ironically, Doolittle uses those exact same words. I agree, HGT should not be mentioned in the common descent article, but then neither should LUCA because this then touches on the subject of HGT, and begs for the need to mention how HGT affects it.Valich02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it should be, just that it should come in last, and be explained in full. I don't think that HGT's effect on common descent is simple to understand, so I'm hesitant to say too much about it in space-constrained writing like the Evolution lead - better to just stake out ground that will be filled in later - or add it in too briefly, like your attempt in Common descent, as the last sentence of the article is no place to suddenly hit the reader with complex concepts that haven't even been hinted at before.
Also, while I understand the point of some of your attempts to describe it - it's to say you can't really decide how the deep connections between domains and kingdoms work, because they're all so muddled - I have to admit that the images I kept getting was of several different life-forms ancestral to the prokaryotes recombining repeatedly and some prokaryotes getting material from lifeforms that never interacted with the others. While this isn't impossible, without the Universal Genetic Code, it probably wouldn't have had an impact that lasted to this day, and if it had the universal genetic code, it probably had the same ancestor if you went farther back.
...This may just mean that I'm willing to expand my view of the word "ancestor" arbitrarily far, although finding a ribosome-like organism sans nucleic acids and a replicating RNA-like organism sans proteins would probably break it. On the other hand, it'd be really cool and help explain abiogensis, so, who'd really care? Vanished usertalk02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on how to introduce it into the other articles, and possibly into common descent. I've studied this concept pretty thoroughly in the past and now just take it for granted, as do colleagues. Yes it is complicated, and it does confound common descent in the Darwinian sense because this works at the single cell microbial level - and still does today! - and not at the higher levels of descent. It's well studied with bacterium. It's not perplexing to me. Read Lake and Doolittle. Also check out the Tree of Life diagram by Sogin at [[1]]. Notice that the both the Eukaryote Crown Groups and the 16s rDNA tree are not rooted. That's because they can't be rooted. Look at just about every phylogenetic tree and you'll see a different scale interpretation of the root, because they don't know where to put it, because it can't be rooted. The farther back you go, the more HGT took place, the more fuzzy the origin gets. Right now they're trying to calculate the smallest universal common genome that existed - about 260 genes - but not a LUCA beyond that. For a decent read as to how all three domains overlap, see [[2]] This topic is starting to be ancient history already - 8 years old. Wiki has to stay at the forefront of knowledge, groundbreaking. This is what bothers me about not including it. I do think that the common descent article needs major revision, and I'm considering it - even excluding HGT. Read what I posted in the discussion. I can either post a revision, or send it to members as an email attachment for correction and/or critique.Valich04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I was answering James, La gloria è a dio adding of the term theory and why it should not be there, it was an answer to his argument to include the term theory. The guy was mediating an article involving me, and I have seen about his edit on the Evolution article from his talkpage, and I simply told him there why I believe the term theory does not fit where he added it. Not everyone will be reading discussion pages and faqs before editing, so few lines sometimes will be enough to show that person his edit should not have been done than sending him on faqs and past discussions that an occasional visitor to the article will probably not take the time to read. Fad(ix)15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "You wrote: 'Various processes can bring genes from species back together long after those species diverged.' I don't know what you are trying to say here?"
I'm actually trying to be vague here: There's several important processes: HGT, hybridisation, viral incorporation, and fusion. I was trying to be broad enough to include all of them in one short statement. "Genes", because it's not always the whole genome that gets transfered - HGT can include plasmid transfer, after all. Vanished usertalk18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be BOLD…"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles and expects everyone to be bold."[[3]]. Never, should we be vague - here or anywhere else. All Wikipedia articles should be concise, clear and accurate - drawing the reader in to learn and understand more. To allow them to see that Wiki is an accurate - not a vague - source of concise and clear scientific information. Studies show that we are on par with Brittanica. We need to uphold that standard and possibly go beyond it in scope and coverage. Wikipedia has no place for vagueness, and it's philosophy, as stated, is to encourage bold views, along with acccurate content.
In the introduction in that particular paragraph we are talking about speciation and a last common ancestor, not plasmid transfer. The concept that "there never was any last common ancestor" "at the microbial level," should be mentioned there, or somewhere in the introduction, to be "introduced" so that the reader can follow through on it in the article or in other articles, such as the (Speciation, Common Descent or Common Ancestor, and Last Common Ancestor articles. Wikipedia is not World Book Encyclopedia filled with nice pictures and simplified texts for children, and as I mentioned in the talk section, children today are exposed to genetics at a very early age, even in Elementary School, with some High Schools even conducting experiments involving PCR. The Evolution article is the technical article and we should be technical here at all levels. We already have a "non-technical" article at Introduction to Evolution.Valich22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Wells is one of the major proponents of Intelligent Design. Not the best source on biology matters.
Let me be clear: I think that the ring of life and other such things should be fully discussed. Indeed, I did the revision of Gene Flow to include more on Hybridisation and interspecies transfer. I just think that putting a subject that complex in the lead is a bad idea. Let's face it, at the level of detail possible in the lead, we're looking at a quibble over whether horizontal transfer makes ancestry meaningless. I think both of us can agree that it's not at all likely that two organisms, identical enough to be able to swap genes, appeared completely independently through two seperate abiogenesis events. If we accept this, I don't see any problem with calling the first prokaryote the LUCA. And if there's quibbles over whether previous organisms could feed into prokaryotes, I'm quite happy to work backwards to the point where the genetic code came about, and call that the LUCA.
Look at the image to the left,[[4]] it has no LUCA. The "tree" on the left - and it's not even really a tree - has no root. All phylogenetic trees in the traditional concept are rooted. The right Eukaryote Crown Group diagram is also not rooted. At what point in the right diagram do you see a point where the eukaryotes there - and they are all eukaryotes - are, or could be, or even should be, connected to archaea or bacteria or to the tree on the left?Valich05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has no center. Read the caption on the bottom. It is has an "unrooted universal phylogeny." Compare the branchings on this diagram with any other eukaryote phylogenetic tree and you will not be able to find a spot on this diagram to root the Eukaryote Crown Group diagram that corresponds with any other phylogenetic tree.Valich06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed list of the families and genera of the order Carnivora
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article "Detailed list of the families and genera of the order Carnivora," suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. UtherSRG(talk)11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Please delete the list. I was not aware of the other one. It is redundancy and I'll save this one an update if applicable. Thanks a lot for informing me.Valich02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand. As you can see, I left responses on the discussion page. It is suggested to be merged with the Genetic Code article. When marked for deletion, can we merge parts of it into the genetic code article? I hope that the gist of it can still be maintained. Somewhere we have to address the variations to the standard genetic code and the emergence of new amino acids: the 21st and 22nd, and up to 30 more now. As I stated in the discussion page, the article provides a more realistic, evolutionary perspective with a lot of very important information about the genetic code that cannot be found on any other Wikipedia article. The article is very accurate with a long list of references that are well sited. Valich18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am the original author (and main contributor) of the Feliformia article. I noticed your addition to the article discussing the Feliform evolution and Feliform/Caniform split. I also noted that the information added is from the article on Carnivora (presumably your contribution). While it is excellent work, I felt duplicating the information somewhat unnecessary. And, as the discussion deals with both Feliforms and Caniforms, it quite rightly belongs in the Carnivora article. I have therefore undone your edit and added a note under evolution to direct readers back to the Carnivora (i.e. for an expansion on the evolution discussion).
As an aside (and meant only as positive feedback) the inclusion you made also broke up the flow of the discussion in the Feliformia article. It would have been better to include it in section on evolution. I considered doing just that, but decided a reference back to the Carnivora article made more sense (as that article is well structured and duplicating sub-elements from it would not add value). -Oz Spinner07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections at all. I am constantly researching these subjects and add updated content as it arises in the field. Your article is excellent. If you feel that it interrupts the flow then I respect you for your changes. No problem. Valich05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be a starter of the sheild article - just letting you know there is possible merging and change to the way it is there. cheers SatuSuro05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's been quite a while now since I wrote that initial article and I have encouragement to see it being improved. I hope you remember the difference between a shield and basement rock , or platform, if it is merged. Valich05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey not me - I am just running the idea past a few others - and your point needs to be probably emphasised in the arts - I can remember edit wars in the Mount Augustus/monolith department - I'll feign ignorance - I was just a geological field assistant in a past life - not a fully fledged geol :) Hey thanks for the tip anyways - very useful SatuSuro05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Emplacement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Nick boyd16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. This is a geology "definition." But as you can see, the "military" definition is even shorter. I added this in to clarify an ambiguous geology article. I have no objection to its deletion if you think this will improve Wikipedia's content.Valich06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sinonyx will be a problematic article to write, but what we have now - well? Yes I have a lot of info on it. Morphologist have long thought that Sinonyx is the origin of Cetacea (whales) but recent DNA phylogenetic analysis places Artiodactyla (paraphyletic) as the closest. In some phylogenetic analyses if you rearrange the character traits then Mesonychidae is sister to Cetacea and artiodactyls become monophyletic. What's problematic is that the time interval of divergence between Mesonychidae and Artiodactyla and Cetacea are all so close as to make certainty of the origin of Cetacea difficult. Not much info on other triisodontids but I can put together an article. Valich18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus seems to be that Hapalodectus was a primitive mesonychian (see O'Leary, Maureen A., 1998) and that it may or may not represent a transitional form to Cetacea that walked on land like a sea lion and swam with a seal/otter method, but I'm not finding enough reliable information on this. There have only been about a half dozen bits and pieces of fossils found. It had skeletal features associated with terrestrial locomotion but not with cursoriality (running).
"On the basis of current evidence the phylogenetic position of Hapalodectes remains unresolved (Geisler and O'Leary, 1997); this taxon sometimes clusters with a monophyletic Mesonychidae to the exclusion of Cetacea and sometimes falls outside a mesonychid-cetacean clade, making Mesonychia paraphyletic....If hapalodectids form a monophyletic clade with mesonychids, the hypothesis that cursoriality was not a primitive feature of the entire mesonychian clade must be considered. This is significant because it suggests that when further evidence becomes available for direct comparison of various postcranial elements, derived features of the most primitive whale skeleton known, Ambulocetus (Thewissen et al., 1996), such as the relatively grooved proximal astragalus, may not be synapomorphies of Mesonychia and Cetacea but instead homoplasies. Alternative hypotheses, such as that the postcranial morphology of Hapalodectes represents a reversal or that Mesonychia is paraphyletic with respect to Cetacea, cannot be rejected without further data.Retrieval of other skeletal elements of Hapalodectes, particularly an astragalus, will be important for establishing the basal mesonychian morphotype and for understanding the relationship of this clade to Cetacea." http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/3175/1/N3242.pdfValich03:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I have moved this article back to its original title. I don't know why you moved it to "Trans-Hudson oregon" - that title is clearly wrong, and the original title is the name used in articles like Orogeny and Black Hills, as well as in the references in the article itself. If you had a good reason, please let me know.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wyomig, Mojave, Yavapai, Mazatzal, Trans-Hudson.gif The term "Hudsonian" is antiquated and seldom used anymore except in some geochemical circles. It's outdated. If you do a search on any search engine ("googlescholar" for example) with Trans-Hudsonian you'll get 16 hits, compared to 560 hits using Trans-Hudson. LITHOPROBE in Canada uses "Trans-Hudson Oregon" vs. oregony, and they've been researching it for 27 years now. I think they're the pros at it although I'm researching this from multiple current sources now, but no one uses Hudsonian, except sometimes when used alone, i.e. in "Hudsonian orogeny." It's an "old fashion" unnecessary suffix that takes away the brevity that is in "common use" today. Look through a few modern textbooks and maps (for example: Chernicoff, or Hamblin and Christiansen). What authority do you have to state so suredly that "that title is clearly wrong"? "Clearly"? Furthermore, the article is a stub and needs to be greatly expanded. What I tried to do was lay down an initial framework to be smoothed out, along with a couple reputable references that could be used to elaborate. Did you even bother to check out these additional references? Valich (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. What caught my eye as "clearly wrong" was the word OREGON in your title which surely was a typo for OROGEN (wasn't it?). I thought I was being helpful by moving the article to "Trans-Hudson orogen". Then when I started to sort out the back-links and redirects I found they all came from references to "Trans-Hudsonian Orogeny", and I was puzzled and thought I would do best to reset everything and drop you a note. For the rest, I think the usual usage is that "orogeny" is the event and an "orogen" is the resulting structure, so that if the article starts " ...was a major orogenic event" then "orogeny" would be the better word in the title; but on "Hudson" vs. "Hudsonian" you are clearly right on modern usage. Apologies again: I was trying to be helpful, but my note could have been better phrased. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Orogeny" is the "mountain building" event, and grammatically "orogen" should be the resulting structure, but most all articles today on the Trans-Hudson drop the use of the word "orogeny" and just use "orogen" instead. Maybe this trend somehow caught on from the successful results that came out of LITHOPROBE's Trans-Hudson Orogen Transect (THOT) Project and their predominant influence in the literature. Don't know? You'll see a lot of my sources - the most up-to-date one's - entitled with "Orogen," yet they describe the event. Strange, aye? Valich (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very complicated intertwined subject that needs depth of insight to understand and put together. I'm trying to piece together this huge puzzle. Nevertheless, I think in the end we should have the best most-comprehensive article on the THO anywhere. The article will be greatly expanded with numerous links and sources added, such as new articles that will be linked to all those new red marks. I'm not sure of what all sources to use as citations yet because I want to include the best, but there will be plenty. There are probably already some slight errors because I'm not 100% sure of some of the sources and these will likely change, unless verified. If you think that there is something "definitely" wrong, then please add into it or put something in the talk page.
The "Sequence of Events" needs to be divided up to include the coming together of the broken-up supercontinents, such as Laurasia and Pangaea, and the pieces of the microcontinents and drifting cratons (Antartica? - maybe with the Wyoming craton article and accretionary events?). Somehow there has to be a better before, during and after event description, and then later on a much more detailed event description of the separate domains and belts, and this is where it gets highly complex. Lot of new research stuidies here. The article is still just a framework. Cheers! Valich (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sémhur, I came across an article written by Black Tusk and saw that you made a map of the Image:Anahim Volcanic Belt-en.svg for an article that he wanted. Can you tell me what program you use to create these drawings and maps? I need a detailed map of the Trans-Hudson orogeny suture zone similar to the LITHPROBE transect maps, such as the one at [[5]]. Are you able to make an expanded map like this that includes the entire THOT (Canada and the U.S.)? [[6]] Valich February 17, 2008 (MST).
Hi Valich, I have a very lot of maps to do, so I'm afraid I won't be able to make this map before a long time (several months).
The data sources and softwares I used are described on the picture's page. To do maps, I follow this tutorial... it's in french and not finished yet ; when it will be done, it will be translated in english (but it can take a long time). However, it has many pictures, and with an automatic translator and a dictionnary, I hope you'll be able to understand easily.
But if you don't want, or know, to make this map, you can ask to the Graphic Lab. They can do that.
"Kodi" is very special to me. She is a real sweetheart. She is a legally registered and certified "Service Animal" as a "Therapy Dog," a "Mobility/Support dog," a smoke alert and an unconcious alert dog, a minimum protection dog, and is now in training as a night vision impairment dog. Norwegian Elkhounds: the "Dog of the Vikings." Valich (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, Kodi does a lot! You must be very proud of her, indeed. Did you know that Norwegian Elkhounds came straight from the wild; they were not a "man-made" breed? The breeder from whom I got mine said that in the wild, Norwegian Elkhounds, when hunting, split into groups of two. These little teams then surround the chosen prey, and sneak up on it. Then, when they're very close, and have all formed a circle around the animal, one member of each of the teams stands up on their hind legs and howls, while the others all jump in for the kill. Fascinating, huh? The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Norske Elghund ("Elg" means "moose," "hund" means "dog") are thought to have evolved from three species of wolves: one species from Romania, Europe and Eurasia. They are short, with a muscular stocky build, so as to evade the crushing hooves of the moose when it is cornered at bay. In Norway, they are selected into two types for hunting moose: the "Loshund," which is free running and finds the moose by scent, then corners it, and barks until the hunter arrives; and the "Bandhund," which is usually led by the hunter on a 10-30 foot lead. http://www.elkhound.net/huntingelkhound.htm You can find a lot of info about this on the internet. Recommended reading: "The New Complete Norwegian Elkhound," by Olav Wallo; The Norwegian Elkhound," by Nina P. Ross. NEAA National Speciality is May 26-30, 2008 in Rochester, Minnesota. Come, watch, see and enjoy hundreds of beautiful elkhounds. http://www.neaa.net/2008natl/Valich (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time permitting, yes I can definitely help you with this article. For the changes that I have made, please refer to the dicussion page where I cite Wesley-Hunt, Gina D., "The morphological diversification of carnivores in North America," Paleobiology, 31(1), 2005, pp. 35–55.
Looking at this edit, you reverted a whole bunch of changes I made to the article in the process of making some other changes. Was that accidental? If not, can you explain why you did it? Raul654 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was in the sandbox with the article and apparently we were both editing at the same time: "editing conflict."
As you can tell, when I take on an assignment, I tend to immerse myself into it. I'm only about one-third of the way done, with a few linked articles that I will need to write for further clarification as I research more. The more I learn about a subject, the more I think of it as a commitment to share this new knowledge with everyone else, and to contribute to the "world database of knowledge" for continued progress in this field. Paleontology is an ongoing endeavor that is never completely finished. I am sure that we may have differences in what we write, and this can be expected. For example, the depiction of the amphicyonid Temnocyon that you posted is a rather comical cartoon caricature. It is what the NPS rangers use for family-oriented public interpretive programs, and not a very accurate and detailed encyclopedic-oriented impression that shows "the creature's fearsome teeth and powerful jaws." The rangers would not want to show a depiction of a beast that might scare children, but do you really think that a huge carnivorous Amphicyon Bear-dog looked that cuddly, cute, and friendly - like a children's pet? Sorry, but I had to delete your final sentence because I have absolutely no idea what it means. You wrote: "Additionally, there is also dispute as to when the canids went prior to or following the arrival of true cats." What do you mean by "went"? They did not go anywhere. We pretty much know the dates of all three of the Canidae subfamilies. Hesperocyoninae were always hypercarnivores, and the last subfamily, Caninae, evolved during the Arikareean period during the disappearance of the Nimravidae sometime after 28 Ma.. Xiaoming Wang is really the expert in this field. He has a new book that was just published in July, 2008: "Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History." I have a pretty large collection of books and journal articles that I would certainly share with anyone who has interest in these areas. Valich (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is also dispute as to when the canids went prior to or following the arrival of true cats. - that should have said as to when the canids went extinct prior -- it was a typo. Hunt says they (the allegedly feline-like caniforms) went extinct prior to the arrival of true cats, whereas Flannery says they want extinct afterwards. Do you mind if I restore it? Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about the bear-dog pic -- it might be inaccurate, but I think the article is better having something there to illustrate it, rather than nothing. It makes it more engaging to the reader. If you can suggest an alterantive - a more accurate picture of a cat-like caniform licensed under a wikipedia-friendly license - then I'd be happy to replace the current pic. Raul654 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canids is the plural word for Canidae (wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, dogs, and dog-like). The two subfamiles Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae became extinct after the "cat gap." Wesley-Hunt can get very esoteric in her wording, so you have to really understand the context of her articles. Or are are you referring to Robert Hunt? When you say "allegedly feline-like caniforms," I think you might be referring to the feliformnimravids? Nimravidae are considered basalfeliforms and the first to split after the Caniformia-Feliformia split in the mid Eocene 55 Ma. They are not Felidae ("true cats"). Likewise, Barbourofelids are sometimes viewed as being related to Nimravadea, or sometimes as a separate family, but never as caniforms. May I ask where you are getting this information from? What journal article? You might want to compare the skeleton and picture of Amphicyon ingens in the Amphicyon article. There were a half dozen Amphicyonidae (Bear Dogs) that lived at one time or another in North America before they went extinct (15kg-80kg in size). I am really pondering this article and the direction that it should take, but it is just not right and needs a lot of work. I am tending to think that the main reason behind the "cat gap" is because the nimravids were too hypercarnivorous - too specialized in their eco-niche - and that they could not be replaced by any Felidae after they became extinct because there were none left. A combination of hypercarnivore specialization and habitat change from global cooling. Valich (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I contributed this entry two years ago when it was still in its infancy and a thousand revisions have been made since. The one reference cited is a commentary about a PBS Evolution article with no reference to creationism or ID (intelligent design). What I added was a brief entry about horizontal/lateral gene transfer and its relation to any proposed LUCA. The scientific edit/addition reads as follows:
"The "Last Universal Ancestor" is the name given to the hypothetical unicellular/single-cellular organism or single cell that gave rise to all life on Earth 3.9 to 4.1 billion years ago; however, this hypothesis has since been refuted on many grounds. For example, it was once that that the genetic code was universal, but differences in the genetic code and differences in how each organism translates nucleic acid sequences into proteins, provide support that there never was any "last universal common ancestor." Back in the early 1970s, evolutionary biologists thought that a given piece of DNA specified the same protein subunit in every living thing, and that the genetic code was thus universal. Since this is something unlikely to happen by chance, it was interpreted as evidence that every organism had inherited its genetic code from a single common ancestor, aka, the "Last Universal Ancestor." In 1979, however, exceptions to the code were found in mitochondria, the tiny energy factories inside cells. Biologists subsequently found exceptions in bacteria and in the nuclei of algae and single-celled animals. It is now clear that the genetic code is not the same in all living things, and that it does not provide powerful evidence that all living things evolved on a single tree of life. Further support that there is no "Last Universal Ancestor" has been provided over the years by horizontal/lateral gene transfer in both prokaryote and eukaryote single cell organisms. This is why phylogenetic trees cannot be rooted, why almost all phylogenetic trees have different branching structures, particularly near the base of the tree, and why many organisms have been found with codons and sections of their DNA sequence that are unrelated to any other species."
This is accurate scientific information - some is "common knowledge," but definitely not creationist or ID - but I agree that it needs better references. Time permitting, I'll try to update the references. Thanks a lot for your interest in this field. :) Valich (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference in question has been deleted. Article has been expanded and well-cited with numerous new scientific references. Still needs to be smoothed out.Valich (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Valich. I just reverted an edit you made at the Last Universal Common Ancestor page. I do not necessarily disagree with the substance of your edit, however the source provided (a Scientific American article) does not support the claim that the LUCA is as old as 4.1 Ga. I'd be happy to see it changed to this new figure if you can find a reliable source that specifies this. Cheers, Thibbs (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dingos are a Wolf-pariah dog, and Red Heelers are cross-breed with Dingos and some herding dogs in the 1800's(19th century).
What mekes them both interesting is that they commit a peculiarity that is likeness to a weasel.
When a Heeler(Cattle Dog) or Dingo is threatened by something in close proximity "feeling unsure of something intruding", it stands upright on its back legs with its front legs a little to either side.
I have witnessed this(and not less than three months back a woman walking a Red Heeler in Macdonaldtown suburb, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) many times before from Heelers and wild dogs in approaching them.
Moreover, Kelpies appear unlike many dogs to take to the action of standing on back legs when near someone they do not know or when on their chain when people get near(Kelpies are a familiaris).
But Heelers and Dingos tend to do that alike shrews, mongooses, otters and weasels in sensing danger and feeling threatened.
The mixture of genetics in Dingos is said to be Wolves(Lupus) and Pariah dogs from Thailand, again a set of these may have existed in North America sometime and to this day called Carolina Dogs(A wild dog of the Indians of North America).
Could this be because they have a heavy genetic presence from Borophaginae and as much from Hesperocyonine(Weasel dogs as were the Borophaginae in part)???
Dingos are a Wolf-pariah dog, and Red Heelers are cross-breed with Dingos and some herding dogs in the 1800's(19th century).
What makes them both interesting is that they commit a peculiarity that is likeness to a weasel.
When a Heeler(Cattle Dog) or Dingo is threatened by something in close proximity "feeling unsure of something intruding", it stands upright on its back legs with its front legs a little to either side.
I have witnessed this(and not less than three months back a woman walking a Red Heeler in Macdonaldtown suburb, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) many times before from Heelers and wild dogs in approaching them.
Moreover, Kelpies appear unlike many dogs to take to the action of standing on back legs when near someone they do not know or when on their chain when people get near(Kelpies are a familiaris).
But Heelers and Dingos tend to do that alike shrews, mongooses, otters and weasels in sensing danger and feeling threatened.
The mixture of genetics in Dingos is said to be Wolves(Lupus) and Pariah dogs from Thailand, again a set of these may have existed in North America sometime and to this day called Carolina Dogs(A wild dog of the Indians of North America).
Could this be because they have a heavy genetic presence from Borophaginae and as much from Hesperocyonine(Weasel dogs as were the Borophaginae in part)???
Note: Wikipedia must not get too worried about some facets of this post, it is immensely unlikely the english language has not been used before, including in this jargonal context(c'n shove itself and move over for more important text communication!!! PERIOD 2* It can have any matching apostrophes back providing the liase collectors can spell "apostrophe" correctly as proof).
A couple of years ago you made the following statement in the Red Panda talk page: "Firefox webbrowser uses the Red Panda as its logo. There is also an ancient Chinese translation of the Red Panda as hǔo hú (火狐), which literally translates as "fire fox", referring to the Red Panda’s "fire-reddish" fur color: a name which can designate either the red fox or the Red Panda. Valich 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" Although this same statement seems to appear all over the internet (not to mention at my zoo), I can find no primary source to substantiate. Someone else left a bunch of links claiming to cite this, but all of those links seem to now be broken. Do you have a primary source citation for this statement? thanks for any clues. Donlammers (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Baltic Shield with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Baltic Shield saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thanks for uploading File:NorwegianElkhound.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
