Mass extinction
node
A mass extinction is conventionally defined as a loss of a large fraction of species in a geologically short interval, across many unrelated groups and across a wide geographic range. Each clause is doing work. Extinction is continuous — the background rate never stops — so what distinguishes a mass extinction is rate and breadth rather than the fact of loss. "Many unrelated groups" excludes the collapse of a single clade, and "wide geographic range" excludes a regional catastrophe. The measurement is harder than the definition. Percentages quoted for species loss are estimates reverse-engineered from counts of genera or families in a fossil record that is spatially uneven, taxonomically inconsistent and biased toward shelly marine animals — which is why the figure for the end-Permian has been revised from around 96 per cent of marine species on the classic 1979 analysis to around 81 per cent on a 2016 reanalysis without any new fossils being required. The "Big Five" grouping itself comes from a statistical treatment of the marine record and is a useful convention rather than a natural category; some workers argue the Late Devonian belongs in a different class, being a failure of speciation more than a spike of extinction.
A node is not a place. Drawing it on a map would assert something about the world that no stored fact supports.
Read in · 1
Timeline
No dated observations are stored for this object. Atlas shows what was observed and when — it does not infer a history.
Connections · 0
Assembled narrative · 1
Assembled from 13 blocks · 1 evidence · 13 related
- Story
- A mass extinction is conventionally defined as a loss of a large fraction of species in a geologically short interval, across many unrelated groups and across a wide geographic range. Each clause is doing work. Extinction is continuous — the background rate never stops — so what distinguishes a mass extinction is rate and breadth rather than the fact of loss. "Many unrelated groups" excludes the collapse of a single clade, and "wide geographic range" excludes a regional catastrophe. The measurement is harder than the definition. Percentages quoted for species loss are estimates reverse-engineered from counts of genera or families in a fossil record that is spatially uneven, taxonomically inconsistent and biased toward shelly marine animals — which is why the figure for the end-Permian has been revised from around 96 per cent of marine species on the classic 1979 analysis to around 81 per cent on a 2016 reanalysis without any new fossils being required. The "Big Five" grouping itself comes from a statistical treatment of the marine record and is a useful convention rather than a natural category; some workers argue the Late Devonian belongs in a different class, being a failure of speciation more than a spike of extinction.
- Knowledge
- Mass extinction
- Connections
- Radiometric dating
- The end-Permian mass extinction
- The Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction
- The end-Ordovician mass extinction
- The Late Devonian crisis
- The end-Triassic mass extinction
- Evidence
- Supports the general Precambrian narrative used here: stromatolite biogenicity reasoning, banded iron formation requirements, endosymbiotic origin of organelles and the framing of mass extinction as a measurement problem. Published in 2003, so it predates the 2016, 2018 and 2024 results also cited in this pack. V55 verification basis: this session had no network access to any source — WebFetch was egress-blocked and the WebSearch budget was exhausted — so the cited work was not retrieved and its pagination was not re-checked.
Observed changes · 0
No public Signals are attached to this object. Signals show what changed and when it was observed — never a direction or a rank.
Actions
/atlas?object=CONCEPT_MASS_EXTINCTION&experience=CONCEPT_MASS_EXTINCTION