Talk:Neoproterozoic

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Updated this page to match time table here:

http://www.stratigraphy.org/prec.htm

The ediacaran part (?) was apparently recently ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3721481.stm

Martijn faassen 18:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the right margin time line diagram could be slightly misleading, and is a bit inconsistent with other geological era diagrams.

1. . The picture at a quick glance tends to give the reader the impression that the proterozoic era started approximately 1100 Ma ago.
2. . This time scale has the oldest times on top, and the more recent below. Others are turned the other way around.

Unhappily, I'm not good at graphical illustrations, and do not know how to fix this myself. JoergenB (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Snowball Earth wikipedia page itself says "Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record."

But "whole-Earth glaciation would result in a biota with a noticeably different diversity and composition. This change in diversity and composition has not yet been observed– in fact, the organisms which should be most susceptible to climatic variation emerge unscathed from the snowball Earth."

I'm probably missing something here, but as far as the biota and wikipedia says, it was a geological hypothesis which doesn't pan out.FourLights (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]