Fossils B/C

[HeavyHitter406]

Hey guys-

So, I'm doing Fossils for the first time this year; forgive me if my subsequent question is stupid. I've been doing descriptions of each of the fossils and just got to the genus Lingula under the class Inarticulata. However, when I look up the fossil, it said that this class had been superceded and Lingula actually belonged to the Lingulata class. Am I missing something? Using an old copy of the official list? Thanks a bunch.

[gryphaea1635]

Hey guys-

So, I'm doing Fossils for the first time this year; forgive me if my subsequent question is stupid. I've been doing descriptions of each of the fossils and just got to the genus Lingula under the class Inarticulata. However, when I look up the fossil, it said that this class had been superceded and Lingula actually belonged to the Lingulata class. Am I missing something? Using an old copy of the official list? Thanks a bunch.

Actually that's a decent question... well on wikipedia it says that there are 3 "ways" of grouping brachiopods and that using Articulata and Inarticulata (based on hinge type) is the "traditional classification" while Lingulata is part of another version of classification based on shell composition. So I guess Lingula can belong to multiple classes in a way. (here see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod#Taxonomy)

You should just go with Inarticulata

[Magikarpmaster629]

Hey guys-

So, I'm doing Fossils for the first time this year; forgive me if my subsequent question is stupid. I've been doing descriptions of each of the fossils and just got to the genus Lingula under the class Inarticulata. However, when I look up the fossil, it said that this class had been superceded and Lingula actually belonged to the Lingulata class. Am I missing something? Using an old copy of the official list? Thanks a bunch.

Actually that's a decent question... well on wikipedia it says that there are 3 "ways" of grouping brachiopods and that using Articulata and Inarticulata (based on hinge type) is the "traditional classification" while Lingulata is part of another version of classification based on shell composition. So I guess Lingula can belong to multiple classes in a way. (here see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod#Taxonomy)

You should just go with Inarticulata

If you have a field guide, use its classification. Event supervisors and field guides tend to use traditional classification, and wikipedia does not.

[Unome]

Hey guys-

So, I'm doing Fossils for the first time this year; forgive me if my subsequent question is stupid. I've been doing descriptions of each of the fossils and just got to the genus Lingula under the class Inarticulata. However, when I look up the fossil, it said that this class had been superceded and Lingula actually belonged to the Lingulata class. Am I missing something? Using an old copy of the official list? Thanks a bunch.

Actually that's a decent question... well on wikipedia it says that there are 3 "ways" of grouping brachiopods and that using Articulata and Inarticulata (based on hinge type) is the "traditional classification" while Lingulata is part of another version of classification based on shell composition. So I guess Lingula can belong to multiple classes in a way. (here see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod#Taxonomy)

You should just go with Inarticulata

If you have a field guide, use its classification. Event supervisors and field guides tend to use traditional classification, and wikipedia does not.

I'd agree with this (although definitely try to be aware of specifically who your event supervisor is e.g. a professor, the coach of a team, etc.). However, it's good to know both names because sometimes you can tell which one the test writer is looking for based on the context of the question.

[HeavyHitter406]

Actually that's a decent question... well on wikipedia it says that there are 3 "ways" of grouping brachiopods and that using Articulata and Inarticulata (based on hinge type) is the "traditional classification" while Lingulata is part of another version of classification based on shell composition. So I guess Lingula can belong to multiple classes in a way. (here see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod#Taxonomy)

You should just go with Inarticulata

If you have a field guide, use its classification. Event supervisors and field guides tend to use traditional classification, and wikipedia does not.

I'd agree with this (although definitely try to be aware of specifically who your event supervisor is e.g. a professor, the coach of a team, etc.). However, it's good to know both names because sometimes you can tell which one the test writer is looking for based on the context of the question.

Thanks for the responses guys, I'll write both down and include a brief explanation as to why it is how it is. Thanks again

[SPP SciO]

Quick question about "field guides" -

Our students have been using the Audobon guide, as well as this book: http://www.amazon.com/Prehistoric-Life- ... 075669910X They've been using the internet to prepare their binder. Since the rules allow for "one published field guide," would it be allowable (if not necessarily advisable) to cut out the relevant pages of the Audobon guide, add them to the binder, and bring the "Prehistoric Life" book as their published reference? I'm hesitant only because it doesn't say "field guide" explicitly. It's a beautiful book, and the glossary is super helpful - it doesn't have that many specific fossils from the list, but that's what the binder is for. Any thoughts or similar experiences are appreciated.

[Unome]

Quick question about "field guides" -

Our students have been using the Audobon guide, as well as this book: http://www.amazon.com/Prehistoric-Life- ... 075669910X They've been using the internet to prepare their binder. Since the rules allow for "one published field guide," would it be allowable (if not necessarily advisable) to cut out the relevant pages of the Audobon guide, add them to the binder, and bring the "Prehistoric Life" book as their published reference? I'm hesitant only because it doesn't say "field guide" explicitly. It's a beautiful book, and the glossary is super helpful - it doesn't have that many specific fossils from the list, but that's what the binder is for. Any thoughts or similar experiences are appreciated.

Since your tournaments are probably coming up soon, they probably won't have time to type up the info from Audobon and print it out for their binder (this is what I would normally recommend). Generally it's allowable to put parts of a field guide in the binder (actually I read a post once by someone who hole-punched a field guide for their binder ), although of course you should be prepared for an ES to disallow it on tournament day; it's one of those things that can go either way, depending on the supervisor.

[SPP SciO]

Quick question about "field guides" -

Our students have been using the Audobon guide, as well as this book: http://www.amazon.com/Prehistoric-Life- ... 075669910X They've been using the internet to prepare their binder. Since the rules allow for "one published field guide," would it be allowable (if not necessarily advisable) to cut out the relevant pages of the Audobon guide, add them to the binder, and bring the "Prehistoric Life" book as their published reference? I'm hesitant only because it doesn't say "field guide" explicitly. It's a beautiful book, and the glossary is super helpful - it doesn't have that many specific fossils from the list, but that's what the binder is for. Any thoughts or similar experiences are appreciated.

Since your tournaments are probably coming up soon, they probably won't have time to type up the info from Audobon and print it out for their binder (this is what I would normally recommend). Generally it's allowable to put parts of a field guide in the binder (actually I read a post once by someone who hole-punched a field guide for their binder ), although of course you should be prepared for an ES to disallow it on tournament day; it's one of those things that can go either way, depending on the supervisor.

Yeah- they were thinking of just cutting out the relevant pages and putting them in sheet protectors. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be a good idea (besides the cost of the book!)

However, I'm concerned that "one published field guide" is strictly defined, perhaps excluding textbooks or encyclopedias. If I were the ES I'd interpret it as "one published book" but I suppose that's discretionary. Will try to check before precious "last minutes" are wasted!

[GoofyFoofer]

Quick question about "field guides" -

Our students have been using the Audobon guide, as well as this book: http://www.amazon.com/Prehistoric-Life- ... 075669910X They've been using the internet to prepare their binder. Since the rules allow for "one published field guide," would it be allowable (if not necessarily advisable) to cut out the relevant pages of the Audobon guide, add them to the binder, and bring the "Prehistoric Life" book as their published reference? I'm hesitant only because it doesn't say "field guide" explicitly. It's a beautiful book, and the glossary is super helpful - it doesn't have that many specific fossils from the list, but that's what the binder is for. Any thoughts or similar experiences are appreciated.

I've always seen it as one field guide and one binder allowed. Pages from separate field guides are allowed as long as they are hole-punched into the binder/placed in sheet protector (that's how I see it). Perhaps submitting a rules clarification?

[Cheesy Pie]

Honestly, it depends on the proctor. I've had really chill proctors who have let me holepunch an entire field guide and put it in my binder, and just called it "clever," and I've had ones with no chill. Even though what I did is technically allowed, it's kind of pushing the rules. I think it's fine to copy pages from another field guide and put them in the binder, but that's just me, and I probably push the rules a little too much.