It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in British Columbia may be able to help! |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2013. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't mean to be a narc, but amusing as it is describing a "snout like a vacuum cleaner hose", the tone doesn't sound like an encyclopedia to me. I do really like the line, but does anyone mind if i change it to something less whimsical? Larryisgood ( talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
re Burgess Onychophora. Conway Morris may be certain that Hallucigenia is an Onychophore. Not everyone agrees. For that matter, not everyone agrees that Aysheaia is an Onychophore although that seems a much more comfortable assignment. Morris is also the guy who originally had Hallucigenia walking around on its spines. Morris may well know more about Lower Cambrian animals than anyone else alive, but that doesn't mean that he is always right. It appears that he possibly sometimes expresses opinions with more confidence than is justified by the data.
Don Kenney
I agree, for what it's worth. Therefore I suggest that Hallucigenia be put into the uncertain list.
From memory, Stephen Jay Gould's book "Bully for Brontosaurus" says that after looking at Walcott's diary, the return story is an exaggeration made by his assistants that Gould got 3rd hand. He actually did it all in one go from 30th Aug-7th September. Can anyone verify this?
I thought that the Burgess Shale was a UNESCO site in its own right, and not merely by inclusion with the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
The "Burgess Shale" property, which was previously inscribed on the World Heritage List, is part of the "Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks". Qyd(talk) 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Guide from the Burgess Shale Geosciences Foundation chiming in here. Burgess was made a World Heritage Site in 1981, and the formation of the 1984 Rocky Mountains WHS (spanning seven provincial and national parks along the border of BC and AB) incorporated the Burgess Shale area. The level of protection awarded the site is the same, or greater, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.32.208.227 ( talk) 17:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Since there seem to be so many organisms unique to the Burgess shale, how about giving them their own category? Several entries for the species mentioned in the article seem to be in imprecise or inaccurate categories. You could call it something like: "Category:Burgess shale fossils", "Category:Organisms unique to the Burgess shale", or even just "Category:Burgess shale". It would probably go under Category:Extinct animals or Category:Fossils. Or both. Would this be helpful or just dumb? Xastic 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought this page could really use an image; there were two to choose from, both on pages for organisms found in the Shale. I used the Hallucigenia pic instead of the Anomalocaris pic, as the former is a pic of the actual Shale and the latter is a (very nice) cgi rendition of an Anomalocaris swimming.
I'm still working on my wikilayoutting, so if anyone knows a better way than the one I have the image on the page with, please go ahead and fix it. In other words, I don't like the way it looks but am at a loss to fix it.
And for the record, I think a 'Burgess Shale fossils' category would be helpful. -- Andymussell 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have created articles for the redlinks in the list. Totnesmartin 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a rewrite. It follows far too closely Gould's interpretation in Wonderful Life. Discoveries since 1990 have made this untenable:
So the "riot of disparity" was far less radical and far longer-lasting than Gould suggested. Philcha 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know which mountain range Mount Burgess is in--Monashee, perhaps? That would tell readers more about the geology. A map would be helpful. Monado ( talk) 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We haven't even started on a catalogue of the Burgess Shale fossils, and it will be a long article when it happens – which it will, see WP:CEX. I suggest a separate article Burgess Shale fossils should cover the fossils, leaving Burgess Shale to handle location, geology, topography, etc. -- Philcha ( talk) 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some significant cleanup and sourcing for the claims that everything Gould said is now regarded as wrong. There is one very poor source for the information. Anyone watching this page have some suggestions on how to handle this? Specifically the passage I have problems with is:
"However, over the ensuing years it became apparent that the diversity was similar to, if not a little lower than, today's; rather than erecting a new phylum for each new and unusual fossil find, researchers now attempt to deduce to which phylum they are most closely related. Gould's work has been criticised for what has been described as a hasty and incomplete analysis, used to support Gould's own ideas, and which has since entered the popular public consciousness."
Tmtoulouse ( talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Initial thoughts (BTW wrap this in a "hide" box if we produce further versions): -- Philcha ( talk) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Pterobranch hemichordates for comparison:
http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/enc_biology/animals/ris._2_170.jpg,
http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/enc_biology/animals/ris._2_172.jpg
- - - - - - - End of transcluded text. Please add new discussion below this line; for the first one, edit the whole page - - - - - - -
This article starts Burgess Shale Formation, yet a wikilink to Burgess Shale Formation redirects to Stephen Formation. I'm out of my depth in this topic area to sort this confusion out, but it seems to me that either these two articles be merged, or that the heirarchy is clarified. Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I love the topic and will help you (please use my Talk page). But I've see that a GA review is hard, as it needs the same thoroughness but faster, and I have a handicap.
Points to consider:
Would it be possible to have 'an equivalent of' the Marine habitats map of Oceanic zone to show where the Burgess shale was in relation to the Cathedral escarpment and the ocean surface.
Were the creatures of the Burgess Shale area confined to that depth of the ocean, or would they have been existing at other levels (in conditions which were not conducive to preservation of their remains)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burgess Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Jim.henderson ( talk) 05:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
We have pages for Burgess Shale, Stephen Formation, Burgess Shale type fauna, History of the Burgess Shale and Fossils of the Burgess Shale. I have never combined pages before but there seems like there could be some better re-directs for such an important topic -- Akrasia25 ( talk) 20:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in British Columbia may be able to help! |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 30, 2013. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't mean to be a narc, but amusing as it is describing a "snout like a vacuum cleaner hose", the tone doesn't sound like an encyclopedia to me. I do really like the line, but does anyone mind if i change it to something less whimsical? Larryisgood ( talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
re Burgess Onychophora. Conway Morris may be certain that Hallucigenia is an Onychophore. Not everyone agrees. For that matter, not everyone agrees that Aysheaia is an Onychophore although that seems a much more comfortable assignment. Morris is also the guy who originally had Hallucigenia walking around on its spines. Morris may well know more about Lower Cambrian animals than anyone else alive, but that doesn't mean that he is always right. It appears that he possibly sometimes expresses opinions with more confidence than is justified by the data.
Don Kenney
I agree, for what it's worth. Therefore I suggest that Hallucigenia be put into the uncertain list.
From memory, Stephen Jay Gould's book "Bully for Brontosaurus" says that after looking at Walcott's diary, the return story is an exaggeration made by his assistants that Gould got 3rd hand. He actually did it all in one go from 30th Aug-7th September. Can anyone verify this?
I thought that the Burgess Shale was a UNESCO site in its own right, and not merely by inclusion with the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
The "Burgess Shale" property, which was previously inscribed on the World Heritage List, is part of the "Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks". Qyd(talk) 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Guide from the Burgess Shale Geosciences Foundation chiming in here. Burgess was made a World Heritage Site in 1981, and the formation of the 1984 Rocky Mountains WHS (spanning seven provincial and national parks along the border of BC and AB) incorporated the Burgess Shale area. The level of protection awarded the site is the same, or greater, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.32.208.227 ( talk) 17:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Since there seem to be so many organisms unique to the Burgess shale, how about giving them their own category? Several entries for the species mentioned in the article seem to be in imprecise or inaccurate categories. You could call it something like: "Category:Burgess shale fossils", "Category:Organisms unique to the Burgess shale", or even just "Category:Burgess shale". It would probably go under Category:Extinct animals or Category:Fossils. Or both. Would this be helpful or just dumb? Xastic 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought this page could really use an image; there were two to choose from, both on pages for organisms found in the Shale. I used the Hallucigenia pic instead of the Anomalocaris pic, as the former is a pic of the actual Shale and the latter is a (very nice) cgi rendition of an Anomalocaris swimming.
I'm still working on my wikilayoutting, so if anyone knows a better way than the one I have the image on the page with, please go ahead and fix it. In other words, I don't like the way it looks but am at a loss to fix it.
And for the record, I think a 'Burgess Shale fossils' category would be helpful. -- Andymussell 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have created articles for the redlinks in the list. Totnesmartin 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a rewrite. It follows far too closely Gould's interpretation in Wonderful Life. Discoveries since 1990 have made this untenable:
So the "riot of disparity" was far less radical and far longer-lasting than Gould suggested. Philcha 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know which mountain range Mount Burgess is in--Monashee, perhaps? That would tell readers more about the geology. A map would be helpful. Monado ( talk) 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We haven't even started on a catalogue of the Burgess Shale fossils, and it will be a long article when it happens – which it will, see WP:CEX. I suggest a separate article Burgess Shale fossils should cover the fossils, leaving Burgess Shale to handle location, geology, topography, etc. -- Philcha ( talk) 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some significant cleanup and sourcing for the claims that everything Gould said is now regarded as wrong. There is one very poor source for the information. Anyone watching this page have some suggestions on how to handle this? Specifically the passage I have problems with is:
"However, over the ensuing years it became apparent that the diversity was similar to, if not a little lower than, today's; rather than erecting a new phylum for each new and unusual fossil find, researchers now attempt to deduce to which phylum they are most closely related. Gould's work has been criticised for what has been described as a hasty and incomplete analysis, used to support Gould's own ideas, and which has since entered the popular public consciousness."
Tmtoulouse ( talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Initial thoughts (BTW wrap this in a "hide" box if we produce further versions): -- Philcha ( talk) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Pterobranch hemichordates for comparison:
http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/enc_biology/animals/ris._2_170.jpg,
http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/enc_biology/animals/ris._2_172.jpg
- - - - - - - End of transcluded text. Please add new discussion below this line; for the first one, edit the whole page - - - - - - -
This article starts Burgess Shale Formation, yet a wikilink to Burgess Shale Formation redirects to Stephen Formation. I'm out of my depth in this topic area to sort this confusion out, but it seems to me that either these two articles be merged, or that the heirarchy is clarified. Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I love the topic and will help you (please use my Talk page). But I've see that a GA review is hard, as it needs the same thoroughness but faster, and I have a handicap.
Points to consider:
Would it be possible to have 'an equivalent of' the Marine habitats map of Oceanic zone to show where the Burgess shale was in relation to the Cathedral escarpment and the ocean surface.
Were the creatures of the Burgess Shale area confined to that depth of the ocean, or would they have been existing at other levels (in conditions which were not conducive to preservation of their remains)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burgess Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Jim.henderson ( talk) 05:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
We have pages for Burgess Shale, Stephen Formation, Burgess Shale type fauna, History of the Burgess Shale and Fossils of the Burgess Shale. I have never combined pages before but there seems like there could be some better re-directs for such an important topic -- Akrasia25 ( talk) 20:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)