Talk:Maotianshan shales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Rewrite

This is a more comprehensive re-write. Everything is well-researched, verified and referenced. I pruned much genus/species-specific information, which can be added back, or used in genus-specific pages. The re-write was copied from User:Locomiguel/sandbox, where I also copied the old page to facilitate re-wikifying. Thus, I think it is ready for copy editing, and wikification – please help out. I also have pictures to add when I figure out how to do this. Loco 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

I believe this page should be renamed Chengjiang biota, and Maotianshan shales should then redirect to Chengjiang biota. Maotianshan shales is seldom used in the literature, and Maotianshan is very easily mispelled. Loco 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the name of the sequence where the lagerstätte lies? --Wetman 00:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question, answered 1st paragraph Loco 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, excellent! a biota is not the equivalent of a geological stratum. In the next decades, characteristic members of the Chengjiang biota are very likely to turn up in sequences other than the Maotianshan shales: cf. the career of the Ediacara biota. --Wetman 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, there already are other sequences, as well as ambiguity about the stratigraphy at various sites from which the biota come. This is not unusual – even the Burgess Shale, after all the years of intense study still presents challenges in correlating units. So, back to my original suggestion – rename the page Chengjiang Biota. This, or simply Chengjiang are normally used, not Maotianshan shales. When people use the term Burgess Shale, they are really referring to the biota of the area by the name that stuck. Loco 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The name switch sounds fine to me. -- Donald Albury 03:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as it isn't a jarring anomaly among the list of other lagerstätten (please look them over for other naming issues), the most obvious term a reader will enter is always the best title. "Maotianshan shales" will automatically redirect anyway. --Wetman 05:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason for my suggestion was that Maotianshan shales wasthe anamoly in the context of names used in the literature. In looking over the lagerstätte list, there are many missing sites, but the famous ones seem pretty complete. Domincan amber, however, seems to me a incongruent special case. Whether a site is a lagerstätte or not gets into some subjectivity anyway.
In speaking to a Chinese friend, it seems that the Chinese translation to Chenjiang is as correct as Chengjiang, suggesting another re-direct should be created. Loco 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trilobitomorpha

A more recent phylogeny deprecates trilobitomorpha, and places the Naraoiidae within arachnomorpha - the arachnomorpha page could be modified accordingly. Loco 22:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't leap at each latest classification: how will this be received in the next few years?--Wetman 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldn’t agree more. I am familiar with and track the literature closely, and on this one I flip-flopped after communicating with others. The phylogeny of basal arthropods is in a state of flux, and has been for several years already. Use of arachnomorpha over trilobitomorpha is consistent with the scientific consensus. Actually, I flipped when trying to make it as consistent with other wiki pages as possible: trilobite; arthropoda; trilobitomorpha (or soft-bodied trilobites); arachnomorpha, but these pages are actually inconsistent on the subject (incomplete and/or need updating). Maybe I should simply punt and place the naraoids with the arthropods to avoid confusion. If I read correctly, there is an arthropod project underway on wikipedia. If done correctly, this project should cover the alternative phylogeny’s of basal and near-basal Cambrian arthropods, as I expect debate will continue for some years. I do repeat, however, trilobitomorpha is an arcane term not usually seen in new publications; it was and is a place to stuff things that don’t fit into zoology textbooks. I appreciate your help. It’s hard to know how much detail to put in an encyclopedia. Should we give it a few days to see if an expert or two weighs in? Loco 10:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Good. I'm just that perfect Wikipedia reader: curious and modestly acquainted with the subject, and utterly amateur. --Wetman 05:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the help. Here are some links that may assist wikiarthropodians and yourself with some of the phylogenies that are moving targets: http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Protostoma/Arthropoda/arthropoda.htm http://www.palaeos.org/Main_Page Loco 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links - species or genera?

Before I get into revert warring, let's talk. Should we link to genera or to species? Comments below please. Totnesmartin 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Link to genera because:
Some of the fossils have representatives in several Laggerstatte, like Waptia and Canadaspis, or have several species in that particular Laggerstatte, like Naraoia--Mr Fink 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The Dinosaurs wikiproject has a genus-only guideline; genus-only for other fossils would be consistent. Also, monospecific genera could become multispecific tomorrow, for all we know, but that's crystal-ball-ism. Totnesmartin 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Link to species because:
Some of the fossils, such as Forfexicaris and Occacaris, belong to monospecific genera.--Mr Fink 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factual error in article

Hi -- In the paragraphs under "Fauna", it says "This fish-like animal has many similarities to Y. lividum, but also differs in several aspects: it has a discernible heart, dorsal and ventral aorta, gill filaments, and a notochord (neural chord)." A notochord is not from neural tissue -- it is mesodermal in origin, and it is not part of any nervous tissue. Look at the Wikipedia entry under notochord.

Skywalker99 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factual error in article

Hi -- In the paragraphs under "Fauna", it says "This fish-like animal has many similarities to Y. lividum, but also differs in several aspects: it has a discernible heart, dorsal and ventral aorta, gill filaments, and a notochord (neural chord)." A notochord is not from neural tissue -- it is mesodermal in origin, and it is not part of any nervous tissue. Look at the Wikipedia entry under notochord.

Skywalker99 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)