Talk:Coeval

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Not Ecology

Sorry, but I don't find any evidence that "coeval" is a term in ecology or biology. It is used in anthropology and philosophy. I had to erase the elaborate definition that had been provided, because I have students who will be looking it up this week and I don't want them to be misled. --Potosino (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments go below project tags, and I don't exactly have a reason to lie do I? Pick up a copy of SciAm and read it there if you'd be so inclined. ResMar 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification about where this usage comes from. I suspect that this must be a misreading of the article. I'll check it out as soon as it comes on line next month. And for the record, I am definitely NOT accusing you of lying! But I think you may have misread the word. Not lying, just misreading -- something we all do from time to time. Related online versions of "Dinosaurs of the Lost Continent" refer to "coeval strata and fauna," i.e. geological strata and animals "from the same era". I still see no evidence for "coeval" meaning "weighing more than a tonne" in any context, nor does the etymology of the word or any available dictionary definition support that definition. --Potosino (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the article. This is what it says: "...the Dinosaur Park Formation contain at least 17 to 20 coeval species of giant dinosaurs—that is, forms exceeding one ton in adult body mass—with most weighing in at more than two tons." The definition ("exceeding one ton") is for "giant dinosaur" and not for "coeval," which means "contemporaneous," as the author of the article confirmed to me in a personal email. For further confirmation, here are the other places the word comes up in the article:

"distinct, coeval faunal provinces"
"distinct, coeval dinosaur provinces"
"two coeval geologic formations"
and again, "distinct, coeval faunal provinces."

Geological provinces and formations cannot be described as weighing more than a ton, so in the article the word "coeval" can only have its usual definition, as attested in every English dictionary, of "contemporaneous." --Potosino (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]