Jump to content

The Paleobiology Database


LabRatKing

Recommended Posts

Been a while. Did a few searches and didn't see this already posted.

 

The Paleobiology Database is relatively new, but it is proving to be indispensable as a go-to site for everything fossil. It is an international database and far more useful than MINDAT.

 

This site is likely a bit advanced for the average user, (can be a bit difficult to navigate), but for the pros and semi-pros, it is a goldmine.

An account is required. Non professionals can create a guest account. Professionals and Avocational folks can upgrade for free by connecting to your institution and using your ORCID

 

The excellent interactive map mode makes it easy to find research papers by site.

image.thumb.png.e4457cf567b10b7ee3d32d0dc14719dc.png

 

  • I found this Informative 4
  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I really like this website! I've been doing quite a bit of research using it too. It doesn't quite cover all data that I've been looking for - often exactly those questions I'm after are also not easily answered using this database - but the general wealth of information is amazing. I certainly recommend using the site. I'm not quite sure what you'd get from having an account with them, though. I've been using the site without (though mostly the map) and that seems to work just fine...

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it.  An account?  I have been using it for years without an account.  

 

As for caterpillar's comments... it is updated manually by a small group of volunteers, so not everything is in there, but it is amazing how many things are in there.  Yes, some of the dots are geographically off, but you can click on the dots and find the source of that information and go directly to the title/author/etc of the original papers.  The  challenge is then to actually find the paper.  A lot of them are available online.     

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpc said:

I love it.  An account?  I have been using it for years without an account.  

 

As for caterpillar's comments... it is updated manually by a small group of volunteers, so not everything is in there, but it is amazing how many things are in there.  Yes, some of the dots are geographically off, but you can click on the dots and find the source of that information and go directly to the title/author/etc of the original papers.  The  challenge is then to actually find the paper.  A lot of them are available online.     

 

To further explain, the records in the PBDB are largely representative of datasets that are being assembled and studied by working groups who are interested in larger-scale trends in paleoecology and macroevolution. It is worth keeping in mind that many of the records are not necessarily verified beyond papers from 50+ years ago so don't necessarily trust that the presence of a record in a site is actually an indication of its presence.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another opinion.
It is a bibliographic compendium.
There is everything. Good, average and bad. Even very bad. Also very good.
It is a useful tool but you have to be critical and contrast the information.
It may be the beginning of an investigation but never the end.

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it had already been posted… By me. Although I’m sure I wasn’t the first. Its nice to have a nice resource reposted every once in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Megalodoodle said:

If we use this resource should we post if we find that a locality is correct?

 

That might not actually be a bad idea at all. I mean, with the combined knowledge on this forum we could surely contribute to increasing the fidelity of the database by verifying localities, if not add to it. Posting verified locations on TFF, however, I think will add little to this effort, as the information will rapidly get lost...

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unlikely that anyone is going to go in there and adjust records; they don't really even do that with respect to scientific expert opinions. As a scientist who has used the PBDB for some work in the past, what I'll say is that any study using PBDB data really, really needs serious data cleaning and validation before analysis. A lot of studies do not do this and that's a major problem.

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example of mess with Paleobiodb.

https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_no=6858

According to this, the genus Siderastrea is present in the Spanish Eocene.
The problem is that the bibliographic citations of the genus are incorrect and what are cited are specimens belonging to the genus Siderofungia with the wrong generic ascription.

Now someone goes and sees it and says: "Siderastrea is present in the Spanish Eocene because PBDB says it", but they will be wrong.

PSSSSSSSS........, problems.

Edited by oyo
  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example:

 

Record 1: https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=28069&is_real_user=

 

Record 2: https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=86946&is_real_user=

 

I'm going to draw your attention here to the "Microsaurs" Asaphestera platyrhis, Asaphestera intermedia, Ricnodon sp., and Archerpeton anthracos. I will also draw your attention to a recent paper by myself and colleagues here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/spp2.1316

 

Of these, one of these taxa (Asaphestera intermedia) does not exist and two (Ricnodon sp. and Archerpeton anthracos) are considered dubious taxa. As of our paper last year, we recognize Asaphestera platyrhis to be a valid taxon distinct from "Asaphestera intermedia" AND we recognize it to be a likely synapsid. Somehow the editors of the database instead identify Asaphestera intermedia as a synapsid (I assume following our paper) and retain Asaphestera platyrhis as a microsaur. Meanwhile, A. intermedia has been reassigned to a new genus and species, Steenerpeton sylvae. I'm not sure which of these two records is even right given that remnants of both Asaphestera platyrhis and Hylerpeton intermedia (not Steenerpeton sylvae) were literally collected from the same lycopod stump. So, the taxonomy here is substantively misleading; it recognizes the synapsid in the wrong locality, identifies the existence of three microsaurs where only one is thought to exist, and, notably, recognizes connections between the Joggins fauna and Czech Republic faunas via the dubious identification of "Ricnodon" in the fauna. So, there is a strange and complicated mix of new interpretations (Asaphestera as a synapsid) along with outdated and misleading taxonomy.

 

 

This is actually persistent throughout the Joggins records; PBDB recognizes a bunch of valid species of Hylonomus where only one valid taxon is currently recognized, Other dubious taxa which have repeatedly been challenged in the literature (Dendryazousa, Atopotera, Platystegos) also persist, which means that the underlying data dramatically overestimates the taxonomic diversity of the Joggins localities.

 

Here's another example:

 

https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=162676&is_real_user=

 

The records here include "Monongahela sp" and Persephonichthys chthonica. These attributions are literally made from the same specimens. We reported these as Monongahela sp. in a preliminary report on the locality in 2005, and formally described those lungfish skulls in 2014 as Persephonichthys

 

We see a similar issue here in a closely related locality:

https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=179620&is_real_user=

 

Where Amphibamidae as identified by Huttenlocker et al. (2005) literally is the same collection of partial skulls we describe as Plemmyradytes in Huttenlocker et al. (2007), and where "Microsauria sp." of Huttenlocker et al. (2005) literally is the type skull of Huskerpeton englehorni in Huttenlocker et al. (2013). Consequently the diversity of this assemblage of localities is dramatically overestimated. Further, somehow, the way this was entered turns an order-level attribution (Microsauria) and a family-level attribution (Amphibamidae) into genus-level attributions. Just a mess.

 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, mixtures are created that do more harm than good.
If you dominate the field, the Spanish Paleogene corals in my case, you notice the errors but if not .............

The last example on my part. It will be enough.

https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_no=6128

According to this entry, the genus Ahrdorffia would be present in the Spanish Eocene. It is based on a synonymy between Mesomorpha and Ahrdorffia that is already doubtful since the loss of the type materials does not make it possible to prove said synonymy.
But in addition the quotation of Mesomorpha (Scleractinia) in the Spanish Eocene is based on quite old works and the materials would belong, again, to the genus Siderofungia.
With a single genus several problems.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll note that random errors are less of an issue for large scale quantitative methods that are designed to deal with that sort of noise. So on one hand there are issues with records but on the other hand some of the science being produced building off that data is more or less reliable. But you shouldn't pull up a PBDB record and assume it is reliable. That's all.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then we could just have paper publications as just a couple decades ago and have to know things without help other than physical or corresponding associations. If everything is included in any web based information site then most of it will be outdated. This is an overview opinion and not a comment on anyone's specific gripes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to make sense not to assume the utility of this database beyond what it actually is. Treated as a general resource or guide, it likely serves its purpose. For more accurate information that meets the standard of academic research and publication, it will obviously fall short (just as citing Wikipedia in a peer-reviewed article is not a good standard). 

 

It is best to treat a database like this as just the very beginning of a research process. not the capstone.  If it inspires the inquisitive to seek out peer-reviewed publications to deepen one's knowledge and obtain the most recent information, then it is serving a useful purpose. 

  • I Agree 2

...How to Philosophize with a Hammer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...