Jump to content

Talk:Subashi Formation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleobiota help

[edit]

Code

[edit]

This section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.

Premade rowspans:

| rowspan="2" |

| rowspan="3" |

| rowspan="4" |

| rowspan="5" |

| rowspan="6" |

| rowspan="7" |

Replacement headings for "Presence" column


! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material


Replacement headings for "Taxa" column



Cell background colors

[edit]

The background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.

Color key
Taxon Reclassified taxon Taxon falsely reported as present Dubious taxon or junior synonym Ichnotaxon Ootaxon Morphotaxon
Notes
Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; crossed out taxa are discredited.

Red for reclassified and preoccupied

|style="background:#fbdddb;" |

Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:

|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |


Dark grey for discredited taxa:

|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |


Peach for Ichnotaxa:

|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |


Light blue for Ootaxa:

|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |


Light green for Morphotaxa:

|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |

Innacurate Paleobiota

[edit]

At least three of the species listed under the "Fossil Content" section seem to be incorrect. The Nemegtosaurus article states "A second species, N. pachi, was described by Dong in 1977 on the basis of the teeth IVPP V.4879, recovered from the Subashi Formation, but is a nomen dubium," the Jaxartosaurus article says "A second species, J. fuyunensis, was described by Wu (1984) for a dentary from Xinjiang, China, but is dubious," and the Euoplocephalus article makes no mention of any Chinese specimens at all (not to mention the fact that it lived in Canada). The first two should definitely be marked as dubious species, but I'm not sure about the Euoplocephalus, since it wouldn't be dubious (its listed as the type and only species E. tutus). Maybe mark it as "Falsely reported as present," if someone could find a proper source for that? I'm hoping somebody with more knowledge about Wikipedia standards knows what to do. 2600:1700:20DC:7810:D81A:AA22:410D:31CB (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]