Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
July 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 4, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 11, 2008Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 6, 2010.
Current status: Featured article

Why did only ectothermic large tetrapods survive the extinction event?[edit]

The second sentence of the article is interesting but puzzling. Why would ectothermic species be advantaged rather than disadvantaged by their lack of ability to regulate their own heat?

Not sure, and it the distinction only seemed to matter for animals over 55 pounds. I assume it's because endotherms have higher food and water requirements, which would make it much harder for large ones to survive under such conditions. Their habitats would have been destroyed, and with them would have gone their food and water. If they didn't die immediately, they would have starved or been poisoned by food, water and air tainted with sulfur and other nasty things by the impact. Sumanuil (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was the sea turtle not the only tetrapod over 55 pounds to survive? With only one example, it's impossible to say anything about any particular quality such as ecto- or endothermy. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meteorite vs. asteroid[edit]

@Wretchskull: re this [1] I believe the IP is correct. It's more often heard of as an asteroid impact than a meteorite impact. Meteorites are generally thought of as small-ish rocks. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geogene: Fair enough, but there should be a source to support that because the current source mentions it as a meteorite. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Geogene: Done. The reference erroneously said meteorite but it was later changed. Wretchskull (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes to update Cretaceous stage[edit]

Prior to the 2021, that's results of end Cretaceous when asteroid hits the Mexico did happen to 66 million years ago, but according to 2021's paper by Bland et al., they gave it to update the Cretaceous stage was 146-67 million years ago (Early Cretaceous from 146-101 Ma; Cenomanian from 101-94 Ma; Coniacian from 90-86 Ma; Campanian from 84-75 Ma, Maastrichtian from 75-67 Ma).

You have to provide a reference, not just change the text so that it no longer reflects the source cited. It would be best to give the source on this talk page so that it can be discussed. It will probably take more than one paper to gain general acceptance of revision of the dating of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would also be great if that sentence would be rewritten, right now it's an unintelligible blob that says nothing. What's the "that's results of end Cretaceous when asteroid hits the Mexico did happen to 66 million years ago, but according to 2021's paper by Bland et al."? What should it mean? Artem.G (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This paper is by "Chris Bland the Whale King"? The same barely coherent vandal who, until he was finally banned, kept vandalizing pages with blatant errors and nonsensical original research?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation 5[edit]

Citation 5 is a photography book, and so doesn't really seem relevant to the statements connected to it, 'With the exception of some ectothermic species such as sea turtles and crocodilians, no tetrapods weighing more than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) survived' I suspect theres an error here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add info on decline in dinosaur biodiversity millions of years before & timeline items[edit]

I think at the least a brief mention is warranted. It's featured in 2022 in science like so:

A study indicates a substantial decline in dinosaur biodiversity millions of years before the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.[1][2]

There may also be more info in the latest section of Timeline of Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event research not yet included in the article. Please check that too.


  1. ^ Hunt, Katie (23 September 2022). "Fossil egg analysis in China adds to debate of what may have caused dinosaurs' demise". CNN. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  2. ^ Han, Fei; Wang, Qiang; Wang, Huapei; Zhu, Xufeng; Zhou, Xinying; Wang, Zhixiang; Fang, Kaiyong; Stidham, Thomas A.; Wang, Wei; Wang, Xiaolin; Li, Xiaoqiang; Qin, Huafeng; Fan, Longgang; Wen, Chen; Luo, Jianhong; Pan, Yongxin; Deng, Chenglong (27 September 2022). "Low dinosaur biodiversity in central China 2 million years prior to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (39): e2211234119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11911234H. doi:10.1073/pnas.2211234119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9522366. PMID 36122246.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC embargo expired (link)

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue is discussed in the article, which states that there have been some studies showing a decline in diversity in the late Cretaceous and others no decline. This is one more regional study and does not seem significant enough to warrant mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]