Talk:Nectocaris

message: The article doesn't say anything about the size of this critter. It should be mentioned.--JyriL talk 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size?

message: New analysis in press, see  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.2010.00253.x. Since the cephalopod claim is technically unsustainably POV now, I have de-POVed the other articles (as far as possible; Petalilium and Vetustovermis basically need to be written anew fron the ground up). After updating Nectocaris, check "what links here" and update those too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Petalilium nor Vestutovermis are mentioned in the rebuttal by Mazurek and Zatoń. Consequently, we cannot draw any conclusions about those genera without it being original research. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Probably arthrtopod(ish) after all?

message: In this edit, a number of changes were made. I think I disagree with them all.
*The first claim that "the reconstruction is a reconstruction of the living organism and is independent of its biological classification" is clearly false. The author's idea of what the organism is, phylogenetically, obviously affects their decisions in reconstructing an animal. That the two reconstructions differ so markedly is compelling evidence of that.
*:The reconstruction is based solely on the fossil data.  The first reconstruction was based on a single, poorly-preserved specimen, and could be improved based on the additional 91 specimens available to Smith & Caron.  M&Z don't disagree with Smith & Caron's reconstruction, but rather on the interpretation of the features it displays. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone happen to have a copy of the Lethaia paper?  I'd like to see it, but all I currently have access to is the abstract.  Also, do we have any photographs of the fossil, itself?  At the very least, we should avoid using any reconstructions for the taxobox, as either version lends undo weight, in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll send it to you; give me a minute. (Anyone else can email me for the same.) --Stemonitis (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Photographs of the fossil available from links here. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nectocaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127211756/http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ms609/nectocaris.html to http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ms609/nectocaris.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Since Plectronoceras is better known now (by the public and perhaps by academia), and as cephalopods seem to have arisen from gastropod-like ancestors, i suggest we reevaluate the sections talking about its relations with cephalopods, or at least mention that Plect is a competing idea for their ancestral species. Anthropophoca (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plectronoceras]]