Talk:Tanis (fossil site)

Paleological map request - map relating Hells Creek to the Western Inland Sea area at the time of impact?

Cross posted at Talk:Hell Creek Formation - please respond there to keep it central

Can anyone help with a suitably licensed version of an academically sound map showing the extent of the Inland Sea and dry land, at the time of impact, and ideally, an indication of the location of present-day North Dakota overlaid (the exact location of the site itself is undisclosed)?

The problem is, that some maps show a large seaway, some show an inland sea that's effectively as closed extension to the Gulf, and some state that by 65.7MYa the sea had mostly dried out and ceased to exist. Many maps also seem to be generic rough outlines, or contradict in their details, and have little if any sign of being paleontologically/geologically well-founded.

It would be very helpful to present some reasonably reliable idea of land levels and coastlines at the time of the KPg impact, so that a reader can see which areas would have been underwater, and which areas, although dry land, would have been low lying and funneled impact waves upward across the region recently below water.

From maps, it looks like the contours might have focussed waves in a 90 degree arc, into the comparatively narrow remaining inland sea, but that's speculative.

Any help resolving the actual terrain so far as it pertains to the time of impact and water/ground levels between Chixculub and Hells Creek (or anything bearing on this) would be very appreciated.

Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We have an article for the Western Interior Seaway. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The full PNAS article (pages 2,3,4, and 8) have passages which refer to the geology of the Tanis river and the Seaway. Any contradicting citations would show that their conclusions apply at different times during the existence of the Seaway, for a specific location in the Seaway. The full Tanis article (with its citations on pp 9-10) is going to have to be a data point in future citations. We don't know them yet. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

What is the Wikipedia policy on capital letters at the beginning of sentences? Specifically, do names that start with lower-case letters (dePalma in this case) get capitalized or do they remain small? I ask this because there is currently a paragraph that starts out with dePalma's name.Kdammers (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DePalma does not start with a lowercase if his papers and the New Yorker article are anything to go by. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Fixed, thank you! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by User:173.228.123.166 (collated)

Article is looking promising. I made some small copyedits in the intro but will hold off further editing per the hatnote. Some comments:

• "iridium, an element rare on earth but common in meteors," - iridium is more abundant in meteors than on earth, but it is rare in both, otherwise people would be mining the KT boundary for iridium and platinum (which is usually found with it). I'd cite the original Alvarez et al paper[1] for abundance figures.

• The stuff in the 2nd paragraph about the seiche flooding should make clear that this happened in the interior seaway mentioned above, otherwise it's confusing. It should also explain that the seiche flooding is a hypothesis argued in the PNAS paper rather than an established conclusion.

• The stuff in the same paragraph about dinosaur feathers etc. should be attributed to the New Yorker article since it's not in the PNAS article and there's been some noise about that.

• The KPg extinction event - section is well written but rehashes stuff from other articles: maybe some of it can be merged away, with a summary and crosslink here.

• Hell Creek formation - similar

• Robert de Palma - this section is stylistically a little too gossipy and should probably be moved to a separate article in standard Wikipedia biography style. E.g. instead of "lifelong paleontologist" the lede should just say he is a paleontologist, and in the biographical or "early life" section it can say he was interested in paleontology as a kid.

• "Hells Creek is largely privately owned land, so access for digging is usually on a commercial basis." -- if this is right, it should have a citation, preferably not the New Yorker. It's unclear to me what common practice is. There is also some noise on Twitter about the land in the region having originally been inhabited by native populations that were displaced through the usual european conquests. I have no idea whether conventional sources say anything about that though.

• Discovery and exploration of 'Tanis' - the dinosaur stuff should be de-emphasized a bit, and again attributed in the text to the New Yorker article, until there's another scientific publication with more about it. The New Yorker article is apparently still considered at least slightly suspect by some academics following the story. It shouldn't be treated like a scientific RS.

• "DePalma quickly began to suspect ..." and similar: again I'd tone down the impressionism a bit. It's a science article, not a personality story.

• "DePalma's co-authors include luminaries" I guess "luminaries" is ok, though "scientists" is fine too. I'd list institutions of at least the more famous ones.

• TBD - it should be fine to include quite a bit more description of the find, based on the PNAS paper. Don't worry too much about it being a primary source as long as there aren't serious leaps of interpetation. IMHO it's fine to summarize what it says, grounding the main points in some of the secondary coverage but going into detail when it's interesting to do so.

Nice work! 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Length of introduction

Someone put a template in the article claiming that the introduction is too long. I want to put in my .02 that I don't think it's too long. The length is about right. It could stand some reorganization but it's ok to postpone that until the article is more fleshed out. Particularly, article's main points should be summarized in the first few sentences, more than they currently are. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

CBC radio episode with De Palma and Witts

[2] Maybe useful, though not independent since the interview is with authors of the paper. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@User:173.228.123.166 - thanks for your multiple comments, which I've refactored into one section for ease. They look good! I also appreciate the courtesy of holding off, but please go ahead and edit as you think best. The main issue is if I'm doing a burst of editing (DYK deadline in 12 hours, gotta get it okay by then and add the missing bits!!) But please, don't let that hold you back unless you see that we're actually hitting edit conflicts. I've edited the header template to reflect this, so others aren't discouraged as well.

I may have already addressed several points, but here's some brief thoughts for now:

• Iridium in intro - already removed, excessive detail for a dense intro anyway.
• Seiche flooding - good point, clarified in intro and in body ("Hells Creek" section). Better?
• Feathers and later discoveries not in the initial paper - leaving this in for the while at least. There doesn't seem to be any dispute by the authors that these are correct findings; the issue seems to be that they were disclosed in media before being formally described in papers, causing people to demand the papers now rather than later. We have cites from the authors that the initial paper just covers the basic assertion/interpretation, and other papers are in progress for other and more specific findings like these. For now, I'd rather try to keep the intro to what appears to be factual - described in a paper or not - and cover the slight hubbub about "where's the description? Oh, it's coming in a while" in the article body. Citing would have to be from the New Yorker as you say, for items not in the papers. Does that sound OK?
• Extinction event/Hell Creek coverage - not sure, let's come back to this later. We do need to describe it somewhat, at least enough to contextualize Tanis. Time and discussion, and a bit of reflection later, might be a good guide to whats needed or can be handled by wikilink. Come back to this in a bit?
• DePalma himself - we don't have the prerequisites for a bio article - 1/ there's not (yet) good grounds to assert personal notability separately from the site he discovered (although if Tanis proves out as it seems, that's all but certain at some point), and 2/ we don't actually have sufficient good reliable independent balanced sources for NPOV coverage on a BLP anyway (there's pretty much only his papers, the New Yorker and his self-descriptions on the museum staff page). So we can't move it to a separate article right now. In summary, seems to me a standalone bio article is still premature and also a clear non-starter right now in terms of some/all of WP:N (+WP:1E?), WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS right now. That could quickly change at any time. But as you'll see, I refactored it somewhat already. Perhaps it's more appropriate in tone and content now? What do you think?

(As an aside, I emailed him earlier today, and explained we needed a couple of points clarified, but needed the response citeable, and explained how to respond (if he wished) to OTRS using his professional email address, to allow confirmation of the source for WP:V/WP:RS mentions (even if just "X says Y"). I got the clear impression he would be very glad to help us that way, so maybe we will be able to fix some of the tone in this section when we have a couple more key facts I've asked about.)

• Private land - sounds reasonable, though let's avoid excessive detours into it all. But worth noting in the separate main article on the H.C. formation if not already covered in that topic (and assuming it's citeable), including reasonable mention of anything about prior American tribe use/older human history. But for now at least, I'm not going to do that in this article, because all that's relevant from that point is that you can't just go anywhere to dig, you (or DePalma here) need an agreeable site owner + terms (whether from a private owner or a govt agency), to be able to dig H.C. locations. I got some further info from DePalma on that aspect, which I'm hoping he will be able to confirm somewhere verifiable/citeable for use here.
• Dinosaur remains/New Yorker - To me it seems these are appropriately covered. I've emphasized the key findings - fish, debris, amber etc - and all of those are also in the published paper. The New Yorker mentions specific other finds, some like the dinosaur ileum are photographed in the paper but not yet described in depth, others aren't in it at all. I think we can assume that the New Yorker's tone may be poor, but the factual statements about what was found, and notable facts about how it was presented, are probably reliable - unlikely to be invention, and no denials seen of any of it either.
• Tone generally - had a go at this, will remove more, feel free to improve as well.
• Paper itself - that's my main remaining task before removing the "in creation" template and picking some possible DYK hooks.
• Intro length - I already saw during the weekend that the intro could be refactored, and done so now I'm back home (compare now vs last Friday). I left the "too long" header template because if it's now okay, someone else would eventually remove it - I didn't feel it right to make that call myself as I'd written the section. Feel free to remove it, seek consensus, or just leave it, as seems appropriate to you - I won't be making that call, but I think it's now okay too FWIW if that helps, and would add that as my feeling if discussed. I also fixed the "main points should be covered in first part of intro" that you mentioned, since I also saw the same and agreed with you.

Please go ahead and comment/edit, just if possible try to avoid major bouts of edit conflict when detected :) Thanks again for the contributions, look forward to any replies on them! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and nice work in continuing to expand and improve the article. I may make some edits but I won't go too crazy and will avoid edit conflicts. If you want to submit it for DYK (5 day limit?) I'd say go ahead. It's in better shape now than most of the stuff that goes through there. No problem deferring most of the remaining issues. They might be a matter of concern for a GA/FA nom but I don't think you want to do that yet anyway. For now it's all fine. I'll look over the intro some more: it may be possible to refactor some of it to further down in the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is anything happening with the DYK? I looked for a nomination and didn't see one. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

When reading the article today, I too found that the lead was too long, but also noticed that some of its material is not in the body. The 2019 section at its end should probably be in the body and a short summary of that be in the lead... —PaleoNeonate – 16:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Extra info provided by DePalma

The following points were stated by DePalma in a private communication about fact-checking of this article (in light of low level of sources for matters outside the formal papers, and the topic's possible high profile upon further media coverage). He has indicated that he would be glad to confirm them for verifiability/reliable source policy purposes via email from his professional email address to WP:OTRS (volunteer team) or similar, and may be able to provide further relevant factual background information related to Tanis. I hope he does so. The key facts that were stated this way are not yet verified, but worth noting; they aren't contentious or disputed, nor breaching BLP or any talk page policy as summarized here. Note that I may not be 100% correct, which is another reason not to rely on these until formally confirmed/corrected. Condensed Q&A points:

• Q: How did he come to be involved with Tanis? What was the broad timeline? (The article+paper offer dates of 2004 and 2012 as milestones, but little else).
  A: There was a group of commercial fossil collectors involved around 2005-08, but although numerous fossils were visible and some even "sticking out of the ground" they were far too fragile and difficult to curate, and the group eventually decided someone else more suitable to such a site should take it over. Hence DePalma came to hear of and eventually was granted the necessary rights to do so.

• Q: The media and paper coverage does not explain clearly, when/how Tanis became seen as unusual, whether quickly or after some time.
  A: It was "immediately unusual". DePalma cites as reasons, the "hundreds or thousands" of fish fossils including many that "shouldn't have been there", compared to only a handful of fish fossils (<5?) known from the entire Hell Creek formation prior to that site. He says that "it was clear within the first season that there had been very special circumstances at this site."

• Q: The museum site states that DePalma has an MA, and the article refers to an "advisor" - presumably PhD advisor - but little else is stated about his academic background.
  A: DePalma states that his original PhD was under the supervision of paleontologist Larry Martin (UK), but Martin died after a long illness in 2013, impacting the PhD works. He states that after some time, he "restarted" his PhD in 2016 under current advisor David Burnham, and instead of the original topic (not stated), he focused on Tanis instead.

• Q: The paper shows Tanis on the West coast of a quite wide seaway. But Blakley's map (the only one I could find that was both detailed, credibly sourced, and free licensed) tends to place southwest North Dakota on the East coast of a narrower and quite fractal (fjord-ridden) coastline. Which of these contradicting proposals is more in line with latest research on the Interior Seaway coastline at the KPg?
  A: DePalma states that in his view, the map in the paper, which is based on Cochran (Cochren?) et al (cited in the PNAS paper) is more in line with latest thinking. If correct, this would place Tanis on the West shore of a slightly wider inland sea. He might be able to source a better quality version of the map for Wikipedia use, perhaps.

None of this is citeable yet in mainspace of course. But it doesn't seem likely to be contentious, and might give an idea of possible facts that might be upcoming or eventually sourced from suitably reliable verifiable sources, as we build the article. It may also help us to be more likely to better characterize (or not misread) some points stated within existing sources. Any errors in the above are mine, but I believe these are fairly neutral and accurate summaries/quotes of the salient points from DePalma's words, and agreeable to him to quote here. If there were any significant error, the fault would be on me alone. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice, this is all useful. Can he confirm that the publication competing with the New Yorker was the NY Times? It will be less awkward in the article if we can just say that, since we cite both articles iirc. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Originally discovered by Dr. Steve Nicklas, Rob Sula, and half a dozen other team members of Paleo Prospectors. Lance Grande and others at the Field Museum were some of the initial researchers. This post on Medium discusses the initial discovery. From the article: Nicklas and Sula are listed in the acknowledgements of the PNAS paper, their role is not mentioned. Jan Smit, co-author of the PNAS paper, commented that “Robert always told us (co-authors) that you two were the original discoverers!” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.32.48 (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft status

It has been 9 days since this article has been edited at all. It is longer and better referenced than the majority of WP articles. Isn't it time to move it out of draft status? --Gwern (contribs) 15:14 26 April 2019 (GMT)

Yes. I agree. Done. Libertyguy (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What to do with this article?

If you publish this article, people will verify and edit it in due time. For the moment, there are only photographs, a university, chemical tests, microscopy and associate professors to verify the data. Tanis is currently a worldwide news phenomenon with lots of evidence, how do you suggest that the site's wiki article be written? to rewrite this entire draft or restart the Tanis page from the square one additively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.140.153.186 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Macleans

Critical article from Macleans.ca:

• https://www.macleans.ca/society/science/why-this-stunning-dinosaur-fossil-discovery-has-scientists-stomping-mad/

67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"in construction section "moved from the article

 == Reception ==

SECTION COLLAPSED DURING CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE IGNORE UNTIL COMPLETE

=== Immediate reception by scientists=== The Smithsonian magazine stated that : "Despite the controversy over how claims of the site hit mass media before the peer-reviewed science paper was available, outside experts note that Tanis truly does seem to be an exceptional spot", and quoted paleontologist Shaena Montanari as saying "This isn’t the only site that preserves fossils at the K/Pg boundary, but it [] might be the most sensational one ever discovered ... I thumbed through the pictures of the fossils included in the supplement and they look absolutely incredible". James Witts of the University of New Mexico commented that the enduring importance of the site was that it "offers a range of geologic clues about what happened after the impact" and "convincingly links evidence from impact ejecta, sedimentology and geochemistry with well-dated physical remains of animals and plants that appear to have been alive right at the time of the impact event". Shaena Montanari cautioned in The Smithsonian magazine, that it would be important to develop rigorous science based upon the finds and the evidence, and not jump quickly to overstated conclusions. She also noted that geochemical data – a crucial factor in determining timings for the deposits – seemed "scant and in some cases being stretched a bit to make interpretations, although this is not a new thing for paleontology". Pat Holroyd of UC Berkeley concurred on the question of robust timeline conclusions, asking whether other possible interpretations of the timelines for the deposit might have been overlooked, perhaps due to limited consideration of possible models. She felt that more clarity was needed about how timelines had been estimated, along with higher resolution images, to resolve this. Other concerns related to the restricted site access (described as being needed to safeguard the site at this time) which impeded other scientists from confirming the findings for themselves, [....................] Many public criticisms were levelled at the gulf between the dramatized popular media descriptions which circulated, and the claims they contained which often were found to be unsupported by the published paper, leaving "many open questions" and "rumors" rather than facts which can be studied. For example, media reports worldwide had claimed a discovery of a "dinosaur graveyard", but when released by PNAS, the only dinosaur bone referenced in the initial paper was a single weathered ilium (hip bone), and even that was to be reported fully in a future paper. The authors have attributed this to a breach of media embargo  which caused public media to "run" with the story several days before PNAS was ready to release the formal paper, and to disclose material which should not have been published until relevant papers were ready. DePalma confirmed that where legitimate finds had been mentioned in the press but not reported already, they would be reported in subsequent papers being prepared. Kate Wong, senior editor at Scientific American, commented on Twitter in regard to DePalma's misidentified fragment in 2015, that she was "troubled" how this was being used by some, to discredit him, insofar as "such misidentifications are not uncommon" in paleontology (including entire skeletons, at times), and result from the extreme difficulty of identifying distorted fossilized fragments. She concluded that the site looks "amazing" from initial reports, and that if there are reasons to discredit the conclusions, the "accidental misidentification of a single skeletal element isn't one of them". ===Other immediate reception=== The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, considered a high quality newspaper of record in the Netherlands, stated after the initial paper was published, that "Robert DePalma has established his name as a scholar". === Longer term assessments===

References

Capitalization to fix

Please change "As" to "as" in this sentence in the article:

but the paper describing such remains is still in progress As of 2019

173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

just do it yourself. it's wikipedia. how lazy can you be. 2601:1C1:8800:9E30:19B8:E5FF:9D18:6A53 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"As of 2019"

It's 2021, but twice in the current version of this article it is stated that DePalma has published no article "as of 2019" or "as of April 2019." What is the current situation in May 2021? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

More than that, surely this finding has been developed further, challenged or even attacked, or at least discussed and analyzed -all in print in citable venues- in the 2.5 years since the latest references. Where is any of that? Is nobody paying attention to the subject and to this article? Really!? Jmacwiki (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ars longa, vita brevis. Feel free to check Google Scholar and update the article accordingly. I have about two thousand articles in my "needs work" list at the moment. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No complaint there! (I have a similar list, and a similar vita brevis.) But are there no other editors following this page actively? Really? Jmacwiki (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Researchgate doesn't list any more recent publications by DePalma. Plantdrew (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither does Google Scholar turn up anything later than 2019 by DePalma for the search term "tanis depalma". However, this short review of the controversy is quite recent and mentions results presented at the recent GSA meeting: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407921018698 That might be a starting place for bring this article up to date. If nothing else, the article is a reliable source confirming that DePalma hasn't published anything new in peer-reviewed venues. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least we have have one new tidbit, and it’s even in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03232-9 Jmacwiki (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bloated lead

The lead of this article is much, much too long and detailed. Most of this needs to be moved into the body of the article, which probably needs some reorganization. I don't know when I'll have time to do this myself. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I made a discovery section for it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

New paper

[3] Jan Smit, a coauthor of this new paper, also co-wrote the original Tanis paper, iirc. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert DePalma inaccuracies

Most of the "sources" provided in the DePalma section provide conflicting information or are no longer accessible. Many unwarranted superlatives or adjectives are not backed up by the "source" material. Considering the dated nature of these sources & the questionable relevance of this section to the main page topic, this section might be worth cutting absent significant revision & fact-checking... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.92.49 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed one superlative statement that did not seem supported by the corresponding source. I'm not surprised there is conflicting views of de Palma; he seems to have become somewhat of a focus of controversy. Given that de Palma is notable primarily for this find, this section probably ought to remain but under the WP:BLP rules, including balance. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Tanis site rename without parenthesis

Isn't this commonly just called the "Tanis site"? Why the unnecessary parentheses? FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that the coordinates of the site have just been removed, with the explanation that this is a security problem. I suggest an even better reason for removing them and keeping them removed: They're completely unsourced. And, given that paleontologists routinely decline to publish exact locations of sensitive sites, I suspect it's going to remain unsourced. If the location is leaked to a popular publication, we can revisit the issue then. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Two related points: First, I imagine Internet Archive grabbed the page, and our WP history certainly did. So the coordinates aren’t really gone. Second, the Attenborough documentary includes plenty of footage of the geography, from which enthusiasts will likely infer the coordinates. Presumably, the research team was okay with that.

So does it matter any longer if we include coordinates? (More meaningful to our readers might be a point on a map.) The matter has moved out of the domain of data and into that of physical security, for which we must assume the team was prepared. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

December 2022 update

[4] Some news and some drama. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Tanis fossil site, fish with ejecta clustered in the gill region.jpg (discussion)
• Tanis site photograph.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tanis fossil site, locator map and layout.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Lagerstätte status

As of Jan 2023, it appears that only DePalma or news sources reporting him have actively used the term Lagerstätte for Tanis. Does anyone have reputable outside sources which have also used Lagerstätte? The few papers from 2022/23 Nature (Barras Feb 2022), Journal of Paleontology (Grande & Hilton 2022), Science (Price Dec 2022) and this [Blog Biologicá Tropical short (apr 2022).--Kevmin § 23:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

During and DePalma

Given the allegations of Fraudulent data leveled by During should the article be as heavy-handed with the DePalma references and huge block quoted sections?--Kevmin § 23:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct 65 Ma to 66 Ma please

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanis_(fossil_site) and the file page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_america_65mya.png both state that the meteor impact occured approximately 65 million years ago, but that should be corrected to approximately 66 million years ago. AlexanderDecommere (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)