Talk:Nautiloid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I originally wrote this article in 1998 and published it on the Web....

It need links to other articles.

Dlloyd 20:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Should this be merged with Nautilus or vice versa? Seem like they overlap considerably, but I'm no cephalopod expert. --Lexor|Talk 13:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I see, nautiloid's refer to all the extinct forms of cephalopod's as well. OK, nix that. --Lexor|Talk

[edit] ammonoids

"The ammonoids...evolved from the nautiloids" - does this mean ammonoids are not nautiloids? Perhaps it should say they are realted to the ammonoids. --DanielCD 16:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tweaked the sentence a bit -- just a bit confused about which designation is higher or if they are equal -- ammonoid and nautiloid. --DanielCD 16:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think taxonomists have this well in hand yet. There are references that say Ammonoidea and Belemnoidea (and other Coleoidea) evolved from older Nautiloidea, but that would mean, cladistically, that they are all nautiloids (see the classification tree on Cephalopoda. ToLWeb shows a somewhat different tree than the one we're using (which comes from this PDF which is also what CephBase uses. Neither show well any understanding of where the exticnt groupings fit in or how the extant and extinct groupings are related to each other. - UtherSRG 18:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Identical images, different labels.

Identical photos on this page, where it's labeled Trilacinoceras, and under Lituites (where it's labeled Lituites). There is no other mention of Trilacinoceras within the text of either article, nor does Trilacinoceras have its own article. To the uneducated reader (like myself) this is confusing. Was Trilacinoceras a species of the genus Lituites? If so, please specify the label in the Lituites article. If not, one of them seems to have been mislabeled. ---Sluzzelin 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lituites lituus Montford is known from the Middle Ordovician (Middle Llanvirn) of the Baltic region (Sweden etc), but it seems that the genus (but different species) has also been found in China, where Trilacinoceras is also found. Accoridng to this reference, is found with Trilacinoceras (it is hard to read the small writing, but the species names seems to be Lituites ninkianganae(?) - probably the wrong spelling because it doesn't come up on Google book search - and Trilacinoceras discors. But according to these photos, Trilacinoceras looks nothing like Lituites (and is also found in Europe); assuming these speciomens are correctly identified of course.

According to this page the species would be Lituites breynius. But I don't know if this is a valid species, or if it is, if this is teh right identification. I wouldn't trust these commercial fossil sellers to correctly identify a fossil. In fact for all we know these fossils may be fakes, or at least in part painted and reconstructed; see Fake and enhanced Fossils - what to look out for (very useful page!) and Faked fossils from around the world. In fact, the sale of fake fossils is quite a big industry! M Alan Kazlev 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)