Talk:Hallucigenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.yvonnenavarro.com/hallug.htm seems to be down. Can anyone confirm/deny this? Alternatively: the Smithsonian has an excellent article (with illustration): http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/shale/phallu.htm Matthew McVickar 00:05, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be dead, yes. Let's replace it; "be bold" as they say.  :) - Hephaestos|§ 00:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox

Added a tentative taxobox. Seems that onychophores are uncertainly in Arthropoda, so that's what I used, but put in ?'s to note the uncertainty.Gwimpey 02:47, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes aren't really appropriate for unclassified organisms, so I removed it. Gdr 00:01:59, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

[edit] Lobopodia Vs Onychophora

Aren't the Lobopods essentially Cambrian onychophores?--155.135.55.200 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

72.134.44.224 20:49, 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.

[edit] It's upside down

You have a link titled:[1] to the artist's interpretation of what halucigenia would have looked like. This interpretation is outdated. The animal is depicted upside down and minus an entire set of "legs". Berkeley has a simple-yet effective depiction of hallucigenia [1] note: this depiction actually has the other set of "legs"

-bumbletowne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.10.240.1 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

The article specifically says that this reconstruction is based on Morris' outdated theory. Dinoguy2 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But in the end we really dont know which way is up, they are just theories of their locomotion, unless more specimens that are good are found, then we will still guess. Enlil Ninlil 06:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They acctually have found some more at some of the other cambrian sites in places like China; apparently the little critters were pretty successful. Don't know much beyond that they found some, however, not many pictures of them. I added a picture of one I created based on the information I found here and else where, like Gould's book (even though it was published before the "right" presentation he had some good fossil pictures.) See if I made any glaring errors. I made it blue because it's easier to make out the details in that color, plus the whole blue underwater lighting thing.--Scorpion451 rant 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems alright: I like the way it looks like it's tromping through a fluff of algae.--Mr Fink 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I started to put kelp type plants around it, then it hit me that I wasn't sure if kelp had developed by then, and so I went the safe route and used algae.--Scorpion451 rant 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)