Comments on: New study revises estimate of the greatest mass extinction

By: Steven M. Stanley

Steven M. Stanley — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:47:19 +0000

In reply to Jonathan Cender. Jonathon -- The 81% is for the final event. The background extinction is not included because it occurred earlier. -- SMS

By: Jonathan Cender

Jonathan Cender — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 02:07:57 +0000

81% still seems very high. Is that the total amount of extinctions, or your recalculated amount w/o background extinctions? If the recalculated amount, then the total would be higher, yes? The total seems more relevant. So maybe still not too hyperbolic to say nearly all life extinguished. Even if it was only 81% total it would still make me very nervous:)

By: Steven M. Stanley

Steven M. Stanley — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:13:11 +0000

Thank you, Patricia. Actually, I have spent a great deal of time in, or partly in, the ocean. In order to interpret how extinct bivalve mollusks lived, for my dissertation, half a century ago (!), I studied the functional skeletal morphology of 95 marine bivalve species. I worked at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the University of Miami Marine Lab, and the University of Puerto Rico Marine Lab. I had only been to the ocean twice before in my life, and only once had I tasted its salty waters! — Steve Stanley

By: Patricia Hebson

Patricia Hebson — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:41:54 +0000

I love your work, love that you study the timelines and are advanced enough to give scientific data background to what we now have in print from your work. The Ocean is our inner world here on earth and to know it will bring many rewards to humans. I look forward to hearing more.