Talk:Cameroceras

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cameroceras vs "Cameraceras"

This article was recently moved to Cameraceras (spelled with an a), on the grounds that the spelling "Cameroceras" (with an o) was a typo. But all the scientific literature clearly spells it "Cameroceras". As fair as I can see, there are only a couple of popular books that spell it "Cameraceras". Unless someone objects in the next few days, I'll move it back to the spelling "Cameroceras". Cephal-odd 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Cameraceras → Cameroceras — The correct spelling of the genus is "Cameroceras". This is the spelling that appears in scientific literature. Probably the article was previously moved to "Cameraceras" because that incorrect spelling appears in a popular book. The Cameraceras article now cites the references. Currently the correct spelling redirects to the incorrect one. Cephal-odd 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support JSTOR score: 22-0. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vague

"The partial shell of one giant Cameroceras yielded a total length estimated at the time at nearly 30 feet. (This estimate has since been revised downward quite a bit.) "

How much? By whom? PenguinJockey 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What's the deal here? Specificity needed! ask123 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plagiarism by another party

I do not possess a Wikipedia account and am very unknowledgable regarding Wikipedia's policies on copying content, but the fossil fandom wiki's page on the Cameroceras takes a lot of information from this Wikipedia page without crediting it.

Wikipedia: Cameroceras has become a "wastebasket taxon" in which large orthoconic endocerids such as Endoceras, Vaginoceras, and Meniscoceras were originally placed. This makes it extremely difficult to describe Cameroceras as a distinct genus. Although the type species Cameroceras trentonense was first described by Conrad in 1842, since then the generic term has had variable meaning.

Fossil Fandom Wiki: "Cameroceras" has become a "wastebasket taxon" in which large orthoconic endocerids such as Endoceras, Vaginoceras, and Meniscoceras have been inserted. This makes it extremely difficult to describe Cameroceras as a distinct genus. Although the type species Cameroceras trentonense was first described by Conrad in 1842, since then the generic term has had variable meaning.

What should be done about this, if anything? 207.28.14.2 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fandom wiki is, essentially a mirror site containing articles mostly copied from fossil articles in Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch - Relative Ages vs Absolute Ages

"...diversity and abundance became severely reduced following the Ordovician–Silurian extinction events, and the last remnants of the genus went extinct sometime during the Wenlock.[2]"

The Wenlock spans 433.4-427.4 ma. The absolute age bracket in the info box is "470-425" ma. Where's the 425 ma coming from? That age would push it into the Ludlow Epoch. --98.208.3.193 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroceras mide 5 metros

Cddv 2.136.187.210 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No size estimates provided?

The Cameroceras article should provide the given size estimate(s) of this orthocone (length and weight). Looking to incorporate this at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciencePublisher (talk • contribs) 06:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SciencePublisher Now mentioned about size of Endoceras which is often referred as size of Cameroceras. Since both giganteum and proteiforme are species of Endoceras, I can't find good source to show size of Cameroceras itself. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]