Talk:Romualdo Formation

Paleobiota help

Code

This section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.

Premade rowspans:

| rowspan="2" |

| rowspan="3" |

| rowspan="4" |

| rowspan="5" |

| rowspan="6" |

| rowspan="7" |

Replacement headings for "Presence" column

! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material

Replacement headings for "Taxa" column

Cell background colors

The background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.

Color key Taxon Reclassified taxon Taxon falsely reported as present Dubious taxon or junior synonym Ichnotaxon Ootaxon Morphotaxon		Notes Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; crossed out taxa are discredited.

Red for reclassified and preoccupied

|style="background:#fbdddb;" |

Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:

|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |

Dark grey for discredited taxa:

|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |

Peach for Ichnotaxa:

|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |

Light blue for Ootaxa:

|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |

Light green for Morphotaxa:

|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |

Caupedactylus

The tapejarid Caupedactylus comes from Romualdo but isn't listed here.

Move to Santana Group

It appears this formation has been upgraded to a group, and that the article should therefore be moved, and the article revised. I did such a move, but it was reverted for unclear reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The formation still is widely known as a formation. One article about paleontology used the name "Santana Group", but the paleontologists are not an authority on the elevations from formations to groups, just like geologists are not an authority on the physiology of spinosaurids. We need a proper reference, at least a couple giving the importance of these units, to geologists who redefined this important formation to a group. And, as Wikipedia works, other geologists who follow that new definition. On top of that, the implications this has on the other formations, especially Crato. Lastly you didn't update anything else than the name and title, so the whole rest of the article became a mismatch. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This 2018 publication, now linked as further reading in the articles listed below, but needs to be incorporated as bibliography later, uses indeed "Santana Group", so the idea there should be an article about that is valid. But then that article should reflect the full stratigraphy of that group. What I see as a better option is renaming this article Romualdo Formation, as it is the former "Romualdo Member" where (most of) these fossils were found, create a new, separate article about the Santana Group that describes the stratigraphic and lateral variations of the various formations (now: Crato Formation, Ipubi Formation and Romualdo Formation). Then the question what the "Araripe Group" represents; is it what is now the Santana Group, or did/does it include more, like I started at the Araripe Basin, where the Arajara Formation (still a formation? now a member? lateral equivalent to other formations?), the Araripina Formation (idem) and Barbalha Fm./Rio da Batateira Fms (different names used over time) are mentioned in stratigraphic analyses of 1992, 2013 and up to 2017 even. The Exu Formation also has an article, does that still exist, or is it now considered part of another formation? A simple rename without looking at the implications/consequences is not the solution and will only increase confusion, where it should do the opposite. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to rename this into a completely different subject, what should instead be done is that the info about the Romualdo Formation should be moved to that article, and cut from here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Abundance of Pterosaurs?

Maybe my eyes accidentally skipped over it while reading, but how come there are so many Pterosaur fossils? Not once have I seen so many different species from the same formation. Is there an explanation for this, or is it just a coincidence? Cryolophosaurus Ellioti5858 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)