Talk:Conodont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Integrity of Article

OK, facts as presented are pretty correct and don't deserve critics - but, the taxobox says ... no hints that conodonta/conodontophora are Animalia>Chordata>Vertebrata, while the text says protoconodonta may be Animalia>Chaetognatha... How to resolve inner conflict?? Rursus 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious fact error, but nobody have reacted!. I'll see if I can protest on a better instance than this page. In fact protoconodonts are commonly believed to be Chaetognatha. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, continually nagging: Conodonts have no taxonomic position, since scale fossils or jaw fossils have no taxonomic position. The taxobox shall be removed, (in fact moved to protoconodonta, paraconodonta and euconodonta. The article presumes that all conodonts are chordata – it shouldn't until such an opinion is strongly dominant amongst all paleontologists. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While teeth and scales have no taxonomy beyond the creatures they belong to, there have been found full bodied specimens of conodonts (Aldridge et al. 1993), which enables them to be classified taxonomically. However, the debate is whether or not they are vertebrates. They are definately craniates (they have well developed eyes), but there is still a lot of debate whether or not they are vertebrates, especially since the idea that hagfish might not be true vertebrates, as they lack any kind of vertebral column is gaining popularity. Opendestiny 14:59, 18 October 2007

[edit] Referring to the animal

Is the animal, sensu stricto, called a conodont? I'm pretty sure that this is sloppy language which should not be endorsed by an encyclopaedia - but I may well be incorrect. Verisimilus T 15:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the fossilized teeth that are preserved in the rock record are referred to as conodonts, not the animal itself. However, this is actually addressed in the article.

Thanks for fixing that. Verisimilus T 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not had chance to have a proper look at this, but it appears to favour the animal being a conodont, and the "teeth" "Conodont elements". Worth following up (and incorporating)? Verisimilus T 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that Conodonta, Paraconodonta and Euconodonta, all clades of animals, are all re-directed to Conodont. So the article needs to cover the animal and the teeth, or different articles need to be written for Conodonta etc. Bondegezou 10:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I was not as specific as I should have been. Conodont does in fact refer to the conodont elements, the teeth. Elements is specified as the conodont apparatus is an assemblage of these conodont elements. The animal itself is referred to as the "conodont animal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.5.35 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not my understanding of the current situation (while it obviously was the case in the past). Do you have an up-to-date reference stating this? I suspect that there may not even be an agreed standard... Verisimilus T 10:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in Geology

Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that the color of a conodont indicates the temperature the surrounding rock was cooked at? This also indicates the quality of any surrounding oil because oil must be cooked in a very small heat range.
I do believe this fact is attributed to Anita Harris of the USGS. 64.74.212.1 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to conodont alteration index in the section 'Conodont teeth fossils' William Avery (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)