Talk:Elvis taxon

Untitled

This is not a neologism, although I thought it might be. On the other hand, a Google search yields only 4 hits that are not Wikipedia related. Should this page be deleted (or at least merged into the Lazarus taxon article? BlankVerse ∅ 14:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see an etymology of this word. --zandperl 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Like the editors above me, I find this entry pretty dubious and have nominated it for deletion. There are almost no google hits for this except Wikipedia and its mirror sites. It may be common as some kind of esoteric biologist-slang, but it doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion here. Kafziel 17:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this article, or part of it, incorporated into the Lazarus taxon article. Though clearly "Elvis taxon" is not now widely enough used to justify its own entry, it's a very cool term. It expresses its special meaning eloquently, and thus deserves some tiny niche for its preservation, not extinction.

I think it should stay, as it's been already noted it has a very distinc meanig, and if google counts as Kafziel argues, Elvis taxa yields "about 88,100" results ... quite sufficient for me 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)~

I say it has to stay or be merged with Lazarus Taxon as it is a new term (1993) with a very distinct meaning, wich happens to be witty too.

Recent search into it's origin points to: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200405/ai_n9377511/pg_10, scroll to paragraph 5).

Does anyone know an example of such taxa? If not, this article seems to be about the useless term and should be deleted (or incorporated with Lazarus taxon).--213.247.213.207 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we wait before user 213.247.213.207 (whoever that is) nominates this article for deletion again? I'm sure lots of examples will turn up in due time. Ramdrake 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lobothyris subgregaria seems to be one example.Ramdrake 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article in the Wikipedia store

I've made some merchandise for the Wikipedia store based on this article: [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/2585365 Elvis Taxon] section. Let me know what you think on the meta page. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumed extinction

Prior to my recent edit, the definition was given as a taxon which has been misidentified as having re-emerged in the fossil record after a period of extinction.

No taxon in history has re-emerged after a period of extinction, and no one identifies taxa (wrongly or rightly) as having done this.

I added the word "presumed". Ordinary Person 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should we mention how Cretaceous plesiosaurs were once thought to be descended from Jurassic plesiosaurs, but, were then discovered to have been descended from Jurassic pliosaurs as another example of an Elvis taxon?--Mr Fink 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. You have to look in the right places.

This is a scholarly term, so I tried Google Scholar for "Elvis taxon" in quotes. I have checked these --

• Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of populations, taxa, and communities 3 hits
• Devonian history of diversity of the rugosan Cyathaxonia fauna 4 hits: 1 in the abstract, 3 on p.4, two of them defining the term and its relation to "Lazarus taxon"
• New floral, sedimentological and isotopic investigation of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary strata in Jameson Land, East Greenland Use and discussion, p. 46
• End-Cretaceous extinctions P.5, as part of an extensive discussion (pp.3-5) of "Sources of bias in the fossil record"

-- and there are at least three other articles listed. --Thnidu (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)