Talk:Neogene

	Geology portal Talk:Neogene is part 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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geological periods task force (assessed as High-importance).

Palaeontology Top‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

May i get some images??? That would be a little more interesting...

This can't be right[edit]

"one of the most rare species of camel also existed in this time, known as the guacoptrus, or carnivorous mountain alpaca, who lived in Venusualia." Guess how many results "guacoptrus" turns up on google? I don't know much about the subject, but I'm guessing it is very not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.44.79 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuppers, can't even spell Venezuela. It's going away. Awickert (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was just added today by a vandal - thanks for catching it. Awickert (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternary[edit]

My cited source is no longer online, and there have been no replies to this Section in almost a year.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I know that debate about the Quaternary exists, but there's no reference to it when it's mentioned that the Neogene could continue to today or end at the Quaternary. My sense, if there is no disagreement, is to follow the ICS and end the Neogene at the beginning of the Pleistocene. Anyone have any strong opinions? Awickert (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an objection: The Quaternary is far too short to be comparable in duration to periods of earlier eras, by which I mean the Cretacious and earlier. A Neogene that spans to the present, however, spans a full 23,000,000 years and is basically comparable to those earlier periods. Besides, here is a reference to support a current Neogene. Just read that 1st paragraph. [[1]] There we go. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neogene[edit]

My sense is that the Quaternary exists because it is a mapping unit. Glacial advances in North America and Europe left distinct deposits, either directly as glacial sediments or indirectly as the result of major sea level fluctuations and regional precipitation changes brought about by the glacial advances. Marine geologists deal with the earth as a whole, and recognize the Neogene mainly as a time term, ranging from the base of the Miocene to the present day. The Neogene refers to a period when the continents were more or less in the present day positions. The overwhelming majority of published scientific articles appear to use Neogene in this sense, based on a search on the Internet. Including the Quaternary and Holocene in the Neogene makes sense to all earth scientists who are not overwhelmed by the importance of Northern Hemisphere glaciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diatom857 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key Events[edit]

This page needs a 'Key Events' table. A Template is available to make it look like all the other Era time periods. i.e. Template:Jurassic graphical timeline -- Denton22 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm named because of this period[edit]

I like this period.

File:Blakey 20moll.jpg

This is my favorite image.

--Neogene252 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Tertiary?[edit]

The wikipedia entry on the Tertiary states 'Tertiary is the former term for the geologic period from 66 million to 2.58 million years ago, a time span that lies between the superseded Secondary period and the Quaternary. The Tertiary is no longer recognized as a formal unit by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, but the word is still widely used. The traditional span of the Tertiary has been divided between the Paleogene and Neogene Periods and extends to the first stage of the Pleistocene Epoch, the Gelasian age'. Would it improve this article if there was a mention of how the Tertiary once encompased this period? I'm no expert on geological time so perhaps someone with expertise in this area could give it some thought, after all, according to Wikipedia the term Tertiary 'is still widely used'. 86.139.43.209 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neogene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923053134/http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/QP%2016-1.pdf to http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/QP%2016-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hominin origin.[edit]

I've edited a sentence in the Flora and Fauna section, because it asserted that hominin ancestors of chimpanzees and modern humans moved from southern Europe into Africa. This is counter to the current consensus (the 'Out of Africa' theory) and is based on a recently discovered tooth. This evidence is thin and disputed, and while it undoubtedly has a place in the human evolutionary story, it doesn't seem to be strong or convincing enough to rewrite the accepted origin theory.--Dom Damian (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Miocene.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism?[edit]

Is ‘Neogene body juices’ really the formal name for the rocks of this period? I don't have the expertise to disagree, but I can't help suspecting some vandalistic mischief (poor Vandals! – misunderstood artists and Mediterranean hegemons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanGray (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]