This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
72.134.44.224 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia, but I noticed that two categories were virtually parallel and should have links between each other. The Cambrian Category holds a mishmash of geologic periods, vertebrates and invertebrates. The Prehistoric Arthropods category holds several Cambrian arthropods that are not in the Cambrian category. So, I added several Cambrian invertebrates (some of them of uncertain classification, but it is much easier to find them in one unified category). It might make sense to have a sub-category in Prehistoric Arthropods for prehistoric invertebrates of uncertain classification, or vice versa. To try to make this little post understood so it can be discussed, I will post this in the talk page for Anomalocaris, Anomalocarid, Aysheaia, and Hallucigenia. Hope this helps Wikipedia's support of a nice little-known topic.
The reconstructions of Laggania at http://www.trilobites.info/species3.html have features which to me suggest a bottom-feeder rather than a plankton feeder:
Laggania also has:
which suggests its was slower and less agile than Anomalocaris. This is consistent with both a plankton-feeder and a bottom-feeder. Philcha 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is only a suggestion. Anyone for it? Giant Blue Anteater 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I second it (anon)
The article briefly mentions Brine Shrimp, though it seems anomalocaris bears an even closer resemblance to Fairy Shrimp, and seems to have a few traits in common with other Branchiopods. Take a look at these pages...
Does anyone know any more (or at least know anywhere it's been discussed at greater depth)? -- Xanthine 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have the title of Shusterman's short story?
Do we need this selection? It was recently removed from the Anomalocaris genus-specific page, and I'm not really certain that it belongs here either. While I think that it is interesting to note that the distinctive family morphology has shown up in several media products listed in the section (and might be an entertaining way for readers of this article to become more familiar with the group), the section as a whole really needs to be better developed. I would recommend some citations from the creators of including media suggesting that their media product was in fact related or inspired by Anomalocaris. Aderksen ( talk)
The article states that "Anomalocarids are the largest Cambrian animals known." Wouldn't that make them the largest animal to ever inhabit the planet up to that point? If so, I think it'd be worth noting that. Jacob1207 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It says in that the Anomalocarid is a member of of the Dinocarida family, but the two groups have completely different taxonomies according to the taxobox - they apparently aren't even part of the same subkingdom. Which is more accurate? There are also some inconsistencies with the Anomalocaris article, which says that Anomalocarididae is a family, not a class, and that Dinocarida is a class rather than a phylum. 98.216.66.2 ( talk) 04:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Missing pipe in: |pages=
(
help)
Okay - this page is terribly organized, and needs some sort of improved hierarchical structure by which to present its information. I suspect that some of this will be redundant with individual species pages, but the two organisms I am currently looking at as models for this page are Opabinia, whose page is laid out as follows:
and of course, Anomalocaris, whose page is laid out as following:
Perhaps some of the Anomalocaris material can be revised and moved to the family page, as that page does appear to be better written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aderksen ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the taxoboxen and image files are bumping the "edit this section" buttons into weird locations. Does anybody have the wiki-fu skills to fix this or offer suggestions that might help us to clear this up? Aderksen (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I moved this page to anomalocaridid, because anomalocarid is a mis-spelling, as explained in the article. Someone reverted it. This frustrated me, so after a cup or two of tea and thought I'd open the issue for discussion. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Questionable Content wiki page did indeed mention anomalocaridids, but I believe the addition of an "In Popular Culture" section to be unencyclopedic.
Quoting from WP:IPCEXAMPLES
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
The first question doesn't apply here, and I can't find anything to fit the second or third criteria, so I think it should be deleted, as much as I love QC. -- hacky ( talk) 17:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Returning to the question of whether the Taxobox should show Anomolocarida as included within Euarthropoda, I understand Legg et al (2012) - currently Reference 8 - to place Radiodonts, including Anomolocaris, outside of the Arthropoda clade. To the best of my understanding, the phylogeny of Panarthropoda to Arthropoda (and Euarthropoda, when this is treated as distinct from Arthropoda) is still very much in contention. I think this Taxobox needs to be revisited. I'm just a layperson in this field (law is my gig) so I probably am not the one to do it. Ray Glock-Grueneich ( talk) 23:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why the page name is breaking a convention here on wikipedia by using the singular form instead of the formal family name. I strongly suggest moving it to Anomalocarididae. Amphioxys ( talk) 03:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Junnn11 and Lithopsian: Only four incoming wikilinks are in articles; the rest are via {{ CEXNAV}} and {{ Burgess Shale}}. If someone can disambiguate those two templates and the four articles then it should be safe to replace this redirect by a disambiguation page – but only if neither meaning is a primary topic. On the other hand, if Radiodonta is the primary topic, it might benefit from a {{ redirect}} hatnote linking to Anomalocarididae. Certes ( talk) 14:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
72.134.44.224 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia, but I noticed that two categories were virtually parallel and should have links between each other. The Cambrian Category holds a mishmash of geologic periods, vertebrates and invertebrates. The Prehistoric Arthropods category holds several Cambrian arthropods that are not in the Cambrian category. So, I added several Cambrian invertebrates (some of them of uncertain classification, but it is much easier to find them in one unified category). It might make sense to have a sub-category in Prehistoric Arthropods for prehistoric invertebrates of uncertain classification, or vice versa. To try to make this little post understood so it can be discussed, I will post this in the talk page for Anomalocaris, Anomalocarid, Aysheaia, and Hallucigenia. Hope this helps Wikipedia's support of a nice little-known topic.
The reconstructions of Laggania at http://www.trilobites.info/species3.html have features which to me suggest a bottom-feeder rather than a plankton feeder:
Laggania also has:
which suggests its was slower and less agile than Anomalocaris. This is consistent with both a plankton-feeder and a bottom-feeder. Philcha 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is only a suggestion. Anyone for it? Giant Blue Anteater 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I second it (anon)
The article briefly mentions Brine Shrimp, though it seems anomalocaris bears an even closer resemblance to Fairy Shrimp, and seems to have a few traits in common with other Branchiopods. Take a look at these pages...
Does anyone know any more (or at least know anywhere it's been discussed at greater depth)? -- Xanthine 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have the title of Shusterman's short story?
Do we need this selection? It was recently removed from the Anomalocaris genus-specific page, and I'm not really certain that it belongs here either. While I think that it is interesting to note that the distinctive family morphology has shown up in several media products listed in the section (and might be an entertaining way for readers of this article to become more familiar with the group), the section as a whole really needs to be better developed. I would recommend some citations from the creators of including media suggesting that their media product was in fact related or inspired by Anomalocaris. Aderksen ( talk)
The article states that "Anomalocarids are the largest Cambrian animals known." Wouldn't that make them the largest animal to ever inhabit the planet up to that point? If so, I think it'd be worth noting that. Jacob1207 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It says in that the Anomalocarid is a member of of the Dinocarida family, but the two groups have completely different taxonomies according to the taxobox - they apparently aren't even part of the same subkingdom. Which is more accurate? There are also some inconsistencies with the Anomalocaris article, which says that Anomalocarididae is a family, not a class, and that Dinocarida is a class rather than a phylum. 98.216.66.2 ( talk) 04:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Missing pipe in: |pages=
(
help)
Okay - this page is terribly organized, and needs some sort of improved hierarchical structure by which to present its information. I suspect that some of this will be redundant with individual species pages, but the two organisms I am currently looking at as models for this page are Opabinia, whose page is laid out as follows:
and of course, Anomalocaris, whose page is laid out as following:
Perhaps some of the Anomalocaris material can be revised and moved to the family page, as that page does appear to be better written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aderksen ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the taxoboxen and image files are bumping the "edit this section" buttons into weird locations. Does anybody have the wiki-fu skills to fix this or offer suggestions that might help us to clear this up? Aderksen (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I moved this page to anomalocaridid, because anomalocarid is a mis-spelling, as explained in the article. Someone reverted it. This frustrated me, so after a cup or two of tea and thought I'd open the issue for discussion. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Questionable Content wiki page did indeed mention anomalocaridids, but I believe the addition of an "In Popular Culture" section to be unencyclopedic.
Quoting from WP:IPCEXAMPLES
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
The first question doesn't apply here, and I can't find anything to fit the second or third criteria, so I think it should be deleted, as much as I love QC. -- hacky ( talk) 17:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Returning to the question of whether the Taxobox should show Anomolocarida as included within Euarthropoda, I understand Legg et al (2012) - currently Reference 8 - to place Radiodonts, including Anomolocaris, outside of the Arthropoda clade. To the best of my understanding, the phylogeny of Panarthropoda to Arthropoda (and Euarthropoda, when this is treated as distinct from Arthropoda) is still very much in contention. I think this Taxobox needs to be revisited. I'm just a layperson in this field (law is my gig) so I probably am not the one to do it. Ray Glock-Grueneich ( talk) 23:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why the page name is breaking a convention here on wikipedia by using the singular form instead of the formal family name. I strongly suggest moving it to Anomalocarididae. Amphioxys ( talk) 03:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Junnn11 and Lithopsian: Only four incoming wikilinks are in articles; the rest are via {{ CEXNAV}} and {{ Burgess Shale}}. If someone can disambiguate those two templates and the four articles then it should be safe to replace this redirect by a disambiguation page – but only if neither meaning is a primary topic. On the other hand, if Radiodonta is the primary topic, it might benefit from a {{ redirect}} hatnote linking to Anomalocarididae. Certes ( talk) 14:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)