Talk:Triassic

	Geology portal Talk:Triassic 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geological periods task force (assessed as Top-importance).

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triassic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Triassic was copied or moved into Late Triassic on 22 November 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Help fixing text

As part of project punctuation we found the following sentence in this article that lacks an ending period. I can't make sense of this sentence, though, particularly the combination of parentheses and em dashes. The 'while' at the beginning seems unresolved. Can someone who understands the subject fix it, perhaps by breaking it into several simpler sentences? Brighterorange 16:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems likely then that while there was some sort of end Carnian extinction (several [[herbivorous]] archosauromorph groups died out at this time, while the large herbivorous [[therapsid]]s - the [[Kannemeyeridae |Kannemeyerid]] [[dicynodont]]s and the [[Traversodontidae|Traversodont]] [[cynodont]]s - were much reduced, at least in the northern half of Pangaea ([[Laurasia]]))

Has my edit improved clarity? --Wetman 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Box

In the box, is this sequence instinctive? Doesn't it read as though Cretaceous came first? it certainly would in any human history box. Do people see that the stratigraphic sequence is being represented?Wetman 05:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

by convention, geological history is read from the bottom up (geological column). Yeah i know it's counter-intuitive, but the only other option is to read it from left to right M Alan Kazlev 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Help is needed in restoring vandalized text. --Wetman 18:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Late Triassic extinction event

Robert Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution indicates that Plesiosauria survived the Late Triassic extinction event.

yes, plesiosaurs were rare in the Triassic, but became common during the Jurassic M Alan Kazlev 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have accidentally deleted the (== Late Triassic extinction event ==) title, although I can not imagine how. ```` = isoptera

Plagerism??

I see some large parts of this article are exact copies from http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/mesozoic/triassic/ being a n00b to Wikipedia, what do I do about this? Edit it?05:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the concern. I see a fair number of phrases that seem to come from that site, but on the whole they seem to me to have been re-cast adequately, but we should do what you have done - raise the question here and see what others think. At a minimum, it looks to me as if whoever wrote those sections should have listed the site you mention as a reference. Can you quote some of the large parts you see? Cheers Geologyguy 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

triassic creatures

nothosaurus placodonts plesiosaurus thalattosauria askeptosaurus icthyosaurus capitosaurus plagiosaurus metoposaurus lissamphibia temnospondyls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.111.237 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is this serious?

"This took the form of a giant "Pac-Man" with an east-facing "mouth" constituting the Tethys sea..." Doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Is it acurate?

Agreed. I changed it and added the map to illustrate. Cheers Geologyguy 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triassic angiosperms?

Is there a citation for this statement: "The first flowering plants (angiosperms) may have evolved during the Triassic ..."? The earliest true angiosperms I know are Cretaceous, but maybe I'm missing something. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the evidence is for angiosperms arising in the Cretaceous - see Evolutionary_history_of_life#Flowering_plants and the list of sources at Talk:Evolutionary history of life. I'll remove the statement. -Philcha (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image(s) of fauna

Can we please have at least one image of typical Triassic fauna? Right now we only have flora. Badagnani (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life

This section really needs a re-organization that separates the fauna and flora, similar to the coverage of the other geological time periods. It would really improve the accessibility of this article. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Africa

Is the description of Africa in the Paleogeography section necessary? It doens't appear to say anything important, except that Africa, like every other current continent, was a part of Pangea. Red Vengeance (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New addition a copyvio

The material added by an IP, which has been removed and reinserted several times, is a copy-paste of the first two paragraphs from the following webpage of UCMP Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/triassic/triassictect.html. J. Spencer (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh christ...

I sincerely apologize for reinstating the violation.

You now see me with my tail between my legs. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 02:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name?

What does "Triassic" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.95.62 (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the section 'Dating and subdivisions' it derives from the Latin for three, referring to the threefold subdivision originally recognised in the German Basin, the Bunter, Muschelkalk and Keuper, see here. Mikenorton (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma vs. Mya

A recent edit changed "Ma" to "Mya". According to Mya (unit)#Symbols y and yr, "Use of "mya" and "bya" is deprecated in modern geophysics, the recommended usage being "Ma" and "Ga" for dates Before Present," TomS TDotO (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But which is most helpful to the general reader? Surely "mya"? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the subject here for a more centralised discussion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I questioned your change, I did not revert it, for I am sympathetic with the change. Please let's not do anything pending further discussion at Project Geology. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think? Shall we proceed? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised ages of Triassic subdivisions

The current pages regarding the subdivisions of the Triassic are using age ranges from the 200r ICS timescale. However, as explained here the 2009 GSA timescale (one that seems to be followed by most recent vert. paleo. literature at least) has revised the dates, and presumably the ICS will follow suit in the future. As it stands a number of articles are becoming confused due to the different systems. Would it be acceptable to switch to the GSA as a source for the affected Triassic pages and timesclaes, at least for now? MMartyniuk (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coal

This section is so poorly written that I am having difficulty understanding what is meant. Can the author please edit it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one or two alterations where the meaning is clear, though badly expressed, but gave up trying to edit the section when I discovered that for the most part the meaning is impenetrable. The section should be re-written by someone who knows about the topic; I can only guess. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were the mammalian reptiles lucky and unlucky ??? during the epochs

Were the mammalian reptiles lucky and unlucky ??? during the epochs? Not exactly. The mammalian reptiles evolved the correct proportion of gene switches and transcription factors that would create:

1. a steady stream of new small species per epoch 2. a faster adaptation rate at larger orders of magnitude

So the mammalian reptiles weren't genetically superior. Neither exists a perfect recipe, merely some best suiting recipies for a specific environment (watch Harvard lectures on YouTube).

During the early Triassic the mammalian reptiles were faster at adapting to the new environment, but this speed doesn't allow maximum quality. During great dyings that speed though is most important.

We must statistically test the positioning of gene switches and transcription factors on the bird vs the mammalian DNA. Usually it's not an issue of numbers, but of subtle nuts and bolts = DNA mechanics.

What I said is absolutely moronic, because it's a hypothesis. What is important is to analyze and reveal the actual data (not to interpret them, I redesign my interpretations into new tests, and when I can't, I ask others to collect data [usually East Asians]).

These data exist (not all possible tests, but some exist). Wikipedia doesn't reveal all the data on the subject! Add more data! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8213:0:d52b:9765:e45b:4a51 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timing question

Triassic states that it "spans 50.6 million years from the end of the Permian Period 251.9 million years ago (Mya)", while Jurassic states that it "spanned 56 million years from the end of the Triassic Period". Which is correct: 56, or 50.6? Thanks – Clockwork Soul 13:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relative times

> from the end of the Permian Period 251.9 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Jurassic Period 201.3 Mya

Wikipedia tries to avoid relative times because they have to be updated as pages age, but it seems tricky to avoid using relative times here. Has someone set a cronjob or other alert to remind us to update this page every 100,000 years to increment those dates? :-) AristosM (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Creature

I think Fasolasuchus should be included in this page. It was a large carnivorous predator and was pretty big. It was (as far as I know) the largest terrestrial non-theropod predator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.86.125.130 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No... that's small compared to this 199.59.112.20 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]