Talk:Burgess Shale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
Burgess Shale is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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! |
Contents |
[edit] Simon Conway Morris
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.
[edit] Return story an exaggeration?
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?
[edit] UNESCO
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)
- From UNESCO site
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)
[edit] Category
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'd vote for helpful over dumb. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
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 would also like a 'Burgess Shale Fossils" category. I do not see one currently, and I would like to try to help with one. Swilk 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I started the category. It now has one entry: Hallucigenia. PAR 01:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redlinks
I have created articles for the redlinks in the list. Totnesmartin 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article outdated, follows Gould too closely
This article needs a rewrite. It follows far too closely Gould's interpretation in Wonderful Life. Discoveries since 1990 have made this untenable:
- The Ediacaran biota include a very probable mollusc (Kimberella) and a probable trilobite (Spriggina) and echinoderm (Arkarua)
- Anomalocaris, Opabinia and Hallucigenia are now regarded as lobopodia and close to the ancestors of arthropods.
- Wiwaxia and Halkieria are regarded as lophotrochozoa ("super-phylum" that includes molluscs, brachiopods, annelids) and some scientists regard Wiwaxia as a mollusc or very close to molluscs (it had a radula). Odontogriphus is also probably a lophotrochozoan, and may be close to molluscs.
- A lot of the "wierd wonders" have been found earlier and / or later than the Burgess Shale. Halkieria is very close to Wiwaxia but its fossils range from the very early Cambrian ("small shelly fauna" include many bits of its armor) to mid Cambrian; Anomalocaris and Hallucigenia have been found in the Chenjiang fauna, 10M yers before the Burgess shale. Orthrozanclus' armor is a combination of that of Halkieria and Wiwaxia, and the known Orthrozanclus specimens date from about 505M years ago (quite late Cambrian).
So the "riot of disparity" was far less radical and far longer-lasting than Gould suggested.Philcha 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Which mountain range?
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)
