Scioly.org

We have being using online resources as well as field books recommended by SO (Smithsonian and National Audubon Society). I realized that temporal range for certain fossils in Wikipedia and those two books are different and "way off" I always assume that those two books should be more reliable and that is the information that we decided to put in the binder. My students just did a practice run in which they need to sort fossils by temporal range and they got it wrong because we got information from those two books. Based on the answer key, the information from the Wikipedia pages is correct.
Anyone has any idea what source is more reliable? Is there any good database on temporal range of fossils? We need to update our binder soon!

meilingkuo wrote:We have being using online resources as well as field books recommended by SO (Smithsonian and National Audubon Society). I realized that temporal range for certain fossils in Wikipedia and those two books are different and "way off" I always assume that those two books should be more reliable and that is the information that we decided to put in the binder. My students just did a practice run in which they need to sort fossils by temporal range and they got it wrong because we got information from those two books. Based on the answer key, the information from the Wikipedia pages is correct.
Anyone has any idea what source is more reliable? Is there any good database on temporal range of fossils? We need to update our binder soon!

Ideally, they would want to trace the information to its origin so they know the controversy and can figure out what the event supervisor is going for with a certain question.

Also, does this counts as a standard size binder? I just noticed doesn’t say it on it so now I am a bit worried.






I went out just to buy it yesterday and yay I spend 2 hours buying this because I keep getting distracted, especially my mom.

AwersomeUser wrote:

AwersomeUser wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote: They can be either physical or photos. You will probably not need a magnifying glass.


Classification questions are theoretically restricted to what is listed on the Fossil List. I would note the full classification of each specimen somewhere.

Ok thanks but do I need to go into details like this:
?

Or is just putting what subclasses there are or one sentence description is fine?

Yes, a one sentence description for taxa that are not on the list is probably fine.

AwersomeUser wrote:Also, does this counts as a standard size binder? I just noticed doesn’t say it on it so now I am a bit worried.






I went out just to buy it yesterday and yay I spend 2 hours buying this because I keep getting distracted, especially my mom.

That looks perfectly fair to me

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

AwersomeUser wrote:

AwersomeUser wrote:
Ok thanks but do I need to go into details like this:
?

Or is just putting what subclasses there are or one sentence description is fine?

Yes, a one sentence description for taxa that are not on the list is probably fine.

Then should I include a photo for each kind of subclass/order?

AwersomeUser wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

AwersomeUser wrote:

Or is just putting what subclasses there are or one sentence description is fine?

Yes, a one sentence description for taxa that are not on the list is probably fine.

Then should I include a photo for each kind of subclass/order?

That's probably not necessary; just be able to ID what's on the list.

Also, do I need to when they existed and stuff now that? I just noticed it is not on the list...
For example for one of them I put:
Halysites, extinct genus of corals found as fossils in marine rocks from the Late Ordovician Period to the end of the Silurian Period (461 million to 416 million years ago). Halysites is also known as the chain coral from the manner of growth observed in fossilized specimens; the genus is colonial, and individual members of the colony construct an elliptical tube next to each other in the manner of chain links. Fossils of Halysites species have been found in the sediments of Canada, United States, Poland and Australia.

Is that too much?

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

AwersomeUser wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote: Yes, a one sentence description for taxa that are not on the list is probably fine.

Then should I include a photo for each kind of subclass/order?

That's probably not necessary; just be able to ID what's on the list.

Ok thanks. But what if they ask me to identify a fossil that is in a subclass/order?

AwersomeUser wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

AwersomeUser wrote:
Then should I include a photo for each kind of subclass/order?

That's probably not necessary; just be able to ID what's on the list.

Ok thanks. But what if they ask me to identify a fossil that is in a subclass/order?

Know the general characteristics of the various higher taxa on the list. Usually questions like this aren't too difficult - it's not that hard to identify a fossil as a trilobite, for example. Most often, these types of questions are used when the particular specimen has some interesting properties but isn't on the list, so if you know the relevance of the specimen (e.g. based on what the other questions are asking) you can usually figure out the classification even if it isn't clear.