Does anyone know where I can get as complete as possible of a

>>2004681
>Please don't point me to Wikipedia.
heh
do you think there's some annual report published listing all the contents of various faunas, updated each time something new is described?

actually there is, but it's called Wikipedia.

>>2004681

you know, you can just look at wikipedia as a library of sources that you CAN directly quote from. if the article is written at all decently (as many aren't) it will have sources listed

>>2004718
>>2004727
This isn't for some fucking school project. I actually want to know what the most complete listing is the North American Pleistocene megafuana. It's that simple.

>>2004732

then the fuck do you have a problem with wikipedia for? or are you one of those thoughtless drones who just parrots "hurr no wikipeepee" but doesn't actually understand what's wrong with it?

>>2004732
yes, and I, a former vertebrate paleontologist, am recommending that you find it on Wikipedia.

because books are outdated before they're even published, and you aren't going to buy my book anyways.

>>2004681
your alternative is to go on google scholar and enter the search terms, "north American Pleistocene megafauna" and then read the ~15,000 results scanning for relevance and age.
good luck.

>>2004740
So what you're telling me, is that Wikipedo conjures information out of thin air and is somehow complete? So there's no organization in at least North America that has a decent listing? Fuck this I'll just start making phone calls. 4chan, you're useless as always.

>>2004806
>So what you're telling me, is that Wikipedo conjures information out of thin air and is somehow complete?
no, what I'm telling you is that Wikipedia is mostly written and reviewed by experts in the field being discussed, and you won't find a more complete or up-to-date collection of information.

do whatever you like.

>>2004681

Yeah it's called wikipedia.

Ps if there was a list written by an organisation...it would be quoted on wikipedia.

>>2004806

what wikipedia does (in theory) is provide condensed information cited directly from reputable sources. whether or not you want to consider being conjured "out of thin air" is up to your semantic tastes.

>this is the face of the stalwart, unthinking anti-wikipedia lobby

>>2004876
>anti-wikipedia lobby
a shrinking crowd since wiki loves it when academics edit pages, and academics love it when wiki cites their work.

vandalism can be a problem, but for the most part it's a pretty fucking sturdy platform.

>>2004883

yeah, idk about anyone else, but as long as you recognize what the limitations of wikipedia are and don't try to quote it like it's the Bible of All Things, it's actually pretty awesome