Talk:Markuelia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this a practical joke? I started reading the new scientist article, and found it odd that the picture was titled 'The penis worm, Markuelia,' or similar, which seems a bit odd, seeing as penis is not mentioned in their article at http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=mg19125645.600&feedId=online-news_rss20 at all. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/09/fossil.embroys.ap/index.html conatins the quote ""The results are truly orgasmic," said Philip C. Donoghue, a paleontologist at Bristol University in England who led the team that created the images.", which sounds out of charecter. I beleive the biggest proof is that "Markuelia" doe not appear to be in any sources not from the AP, Bristol, or Wikipedia itself. 86.128.120.153 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, and recent research has been conducted by Dong et al. Apparently Nature is in on the "penis worm" joke. But see Priapulida. --Wetman 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So what to do? Matthew Clark 86.128.120.153 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At least I suppose that Markuelia is not "a genus of fossil annelid worms", since it is said to be "the closest known relatives to three modern taxa of bilaterian animals: the Loricifera, Kinorhyncha and Priapulida", which do not belong to annelids, and, according to 18S rRNA sequence analysis, are not even closely related to them. Sampo Tiensuu 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I've been silly, let me make an amateur's attempt to shape up this article. --Wetman 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)