Talk:Orthoceras

Triassic, really?

Many sources online reference them as fossils of the Silurian age. A book source that I personally use refers to them as Ordovician - Silurian creatures. A brief search on Google also seems to cite them as ending much earlier than Triassic. The Paleobiology Database labels some samples as Triassic but my Audubon field guide says that 'However, a closer look convinced paleontologists that no North American species fit the type, and now Orthoceras is an appropriate name mostly for European species.'--99.65.15.37 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

X-rated nautiloids?

"Orthocone orgies"??? Where's the reference? OTOH "belemite battlefieds" returned 39 hits on google so it seems legit M Alan Kazlev 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

can't find it either. I removed it. Sander123 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More searching: This paper [1] contains the following text

Holland et al. (1994) documented the commonly high concentration of specimens, characterizing the cephalopod limestone biofacies, describing Ordovician to Devonian examples from widely separated parts of the world. According to these authors different environmental causes could explain the high concentration of fossils. They also consider Doyle and MacDonald’s (1993, p. 67) suggestions regarding so-called ‘belemnite battlefields’ as most likely caused by post-spawning mortality. In conclusion, however, they write: “Thus we are left with catastrophic mass-mortality as the most likely explanation of the Palaeozoic concentrations. It must be said that this is adequate but that its precise nature may be difficult or impossible to discover.” (Holland et al. 1994, p. 96).

From which I conclude that the 'orthocone orgies' are probably a fabrication. And moreover the assemblages considered are, although cephalopods, perhaps not even Orthoceras. Unforunately the referenced paper is not online. Sander123 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

eBay

The paragraph mentioning eBay in this article must be original research, as the only two quoted sources were published before the creation of the internet auction site. I have removed the paragraph. Sfatalis (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Placement of taxon

Information on Wikipedia about the placement of Orthoceras appears inconsistent. Here the taxon is introduced as a nautiloid, whereas other pages define orthoceratoidae (subclass) as a sister taxon to nautiloidae. If that is the consensus here (even if it isn't necessarily elsewhere), should we not remove the "nautiloid" moniker? --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverting and removing the Orthoceras fossil image

@Kevmin: Kevmin why do you say that the image shown below is not Orthoceras fossil? The picture below actually has a tag saying that its Orthoceras (though I removed the tag). The picture was taken in a museum. So do you say that the museum is wrong in identifying the specimen?

Orthoceras fossil

--Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The reasons why this and similar photos have been removed are because, mainly, they aren't of Orthoceras sensu stricto, i.e., Orthoceras regulare from early Ordovician Baltic Sea, or their preparation was too artsy to be diagnostic use.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. The comment that its not Orthoceras confused me. Thanks for the clarification. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's understandable, Orthoceras is still used as a catch-all identifier for both orthocone-style cephalopod shells and sometimes even belemnite fossils, so, lots of confusion.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Presumably that's the same reason for removing the fossil image I posted. However, I think having no fossil image at all is a very real detriment to reader understanding. Why not use the museum image, along with an explanation of whatever reservations there are that it may not actually be of the very early strict-sense Orthoceras? Dcrjsr (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

History of the name - "The genus might include a few related species."

Recommending this line be removed or modified. Species within a genus are by definition related. Further, the point it appears to intend to make is already covered in the first two lines in the "History of the name" section. --2601:206:8001:A0D0:0:0:0:C414 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)