# Talk:Uncus dzaugisi

I found this (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.11.030) dispatch, written by Alexander G. Liu and released by Current Biology, covering the findings of the Hughes et. al. (2024) study. In the dispatch, Liu mentions some reasons to possibly doubt the findings of Hughes and colleagues, while still affirming that U. dzaugisi is the most likely candidate for an Ediacaran ecdysozoan. I was wondering if we should include some of these reasons to doubt (e.g. lack of informative morphological characters, uncertainty of burying/preservation methods of specimens, uncertainty whether or not Multina can be attributed to U. dzaugisi) in the affinities portion of this wiki article? Tseajaia campi (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe that it would indeed be a good idea to include another perspective on the affinities of Uncus, as at the moment we only have a one sided point of view, that being the Hughes et. al. (2024) study and accompanying news reports supporting the study, which makes this article seem quite biased towards not just an ecdysozoan affinity, but the further possible affinities with nematoids and the like.
So introducing a second perspective/point of view on the matter would certainly help with leveling out the bias the article currently has. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree, I actually found this article a bit ago but I didn't have access to it and couldn't cite it for anything. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)