Talk:Evolutionary radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No title
- Evolutionary radiation. Seems some attributions are missing, the logical flow of the article is strangely convoluted, some facts need references and/or checking.
- example
- ... several recent molecular analyses claim to show that ....
- ...These claims confuse basal splits with "radiations," ....
- analyses don't claim, the researchers do, so: ...Paleontologists claim that recent analyses show that...
- counterclaims should be attributed as well: Creationists argue the [aforementioned] analyses confuses splits...
The language is pretty NPOV IMHO. Even too NPOV, since the opening reads: Paleontologists long have argued. The fact (basic definition) should be seperated from peoples opinions about it. Added both Expert & Cleanup marker. -- Zanaq 09:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The text is a slightly modified version of part of the abstract of a paper by J. Alroy of the Smithsonian institute (title 'Evidence for a Paleocene Evolutionary Radiation'). At best, the article is a reasonable account of one particular evolutionary radiation. No general definition of the process is given, and there is no mention of other important examples.
Minimum required work for a reasonable article:
- Introduction including definition and links to other relavent pages on evolutionary theory.
- Additional examples (including the Cambrian Radiation).
- Rewording to avoid NPOV issues.
In addition, the example of the Cenozoic mammalian radiation should be rewritten to fit the subject of the article and avoid direct citation without acnowledgement. -- Savage25
Total rewrite
What existed before has been critiqued above. I rewrote the entry to cover a wider range of organisms that just Tertiary mammals. Added various references. The radiation of mammals is dramatic but far from the most well studied or best understood radiation. The most detail comes from marine, shelly organisms (= the ones with the best fossil record) such as things like brachiopods and ammonites. Not as sexy as mammoths and sabre tooths, perhaps, but palaeontologists have a good deal more data to work with.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
