Talk:Trilobite

message: I do not find any reference that the Nectaspida where assigned to the class Trilobita. How ever they are very trilobite like but anyway they do not have a carapace like Trilobites what is in my opinion quite a higher level systematic feature. Walch himself mentioned the "wonderful preserved carapace of this unknown crustacean species". (Walch, 1771)
As long nobody can provide an scientific valid publication that place the Nectaspida inside the class Trilobita i would see this quite critical.
I personal would like to see somehow Naraoiids inside the Order of Trilobita. In the other hand they are despite the similarity also very different.
So maybe Nectaspida are that close related to trilobites as it can be without being a trilobite.
This discussion seems to be longer around. 
--91.44.201.192 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Nectaspida belong to the Class Trilobita ? 

message: It looks like its pronounced tril-o-bite, but I've also heard TRY-lo-bite. Any definitive sources? I suppose "TRY" echoes the Greek root for three? Tumacama (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer TRY-loh-bite myself, but I've also heard it pronounced TRILL-oh-bite. One of the strangest thing about zoology is everyone teaches themselves how to say things, so you end up with multiple pronunciations of EVERYTHING. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)  01:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Bob -- it really is TRY-loh-bite for the reason Tumacama gave. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: What subphylum were trilobites in? 78.151.23.110 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: What are the typical chemical composition of trilobites as found in the rock record? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical composition of fossils? 

message: This is should be change to reflect that they are an Order and not just one species. Would it constitute synthesis to change it?--Adam in MO Talk 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the first half of the sentence to "The trilobites were among the most successful of all early animals"  Whatcha think?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trilobites were the most successful species roaming the earth for over 270 million years.[2] 

message: I find this statement from the article to be somewhat confusing:
"By comparison with living arthropods, trilobites are thought to have reproduced sexually, producing eggs..."
After rereading the phrase a few times, I realize that the point is that an educated guess was made about trilobite reproduction based upon the behavior of living arthropods. However, on first reading it seemed to me that the article was stating that living arthropods do NOT reproduce sexually, which makes little sense to me (I know that arthropods rarely engage in parthenogenesis, but that is an exception rather than a rule). I don't mean to make trouble for anyone, but I really feel like this could be put more clearly...perhaps someone with greater knowledge would not make the mistake I did, but this is an encyclopedia "for everyone" and the language of this phrase could be somewhat misleading to the layman. I would edit it myself but I'm hardly an expert on such things and I feel like it would be better for a more knowledgeable individual to rephrase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.241.196 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were the case, then the sentence would have been worded as "In contrast to living arthropods, trilobites are thought to have been reproduced sexually..."--Mr Fink (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction 

message: Obsidi♠nSoul... brought it up and I've been thinking that images/diagrams of
1: hypostome (3 types?) and ventral anatomy (such as doublure and apodemes)
2: biramous limb/leg & gill structure
 
3: the three different eye types
would be very helpful in explaining some features. Psuedomorph (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an illustration for the types of hypostomes in User:Obsidian Soul/sandbox/Trilobite anatomy. Nothing on ventral anatomy, leg/gill structure, and eye types though. If you know of any existing illustrations I can base diagrams on, I'll get to work on it.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 07:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I should really read more and talk less :) I've probably got something somewhere that I can scan/post but probably still in copyright, could be used as the basis for something else though. Will post to your sandbox. Psuedomorph (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, just holler if I can help as well. :) -- Obsidi♠nSoul 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More images? 

message: I think its a Phacopida Phacopina, but someone with experience on the matter should help on identifying it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcattz (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilobite pic 

message: The Class Trilobita and the subphylum Trilobitomorpha are not the same and should not redirect on the same Article.
I know that this high level systematic stuff is highly disputed. But regardless is this Taxa is considered as valid* or not valid it is not the Same as the class Trilobite. The class Trilobita is only one class inside. (* i guess in high level systematics it is not the question of valid or invalid it is about how reasonable a classification is.)
--93.211.236.241 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilobitomorpha Stormer 1944 

message: link for ten cool fact about trilobites http://research.amnh.org/paleontology/trilobite-website/twenty-trilobite-fast-facts.Im only ten but in love with the ocean. My mom got me this cool new book about the ocean and I found Trilobites in it .I was so amazed , I found some thing that I could not categorize in a species . I don't know much but if you do or if you know any thing please tell me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.235.26 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilobites 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Trilobite. 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/20140714172533/http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/staffpubs/docs/16439.pdf to http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/staffpubs/docs/16439.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514222917/http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Arthropoda/Trilobita/TriOri.html to http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Arthropoda/Trilobita/TriOri.html
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200111/ai_n8958763/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326141119/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2033/Pages%20529-576.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2033/Pages%20529-576.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514222917/http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Arthropoda/Trilobita/TriOri.html to http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/taxa/arthropoda/trilobita/TriOri.html
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_199807/ai_n8785182
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) 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One section reads:
"Once soft-part anatomy had been recovered, the trilobites were originally allied to the Crustacea. A relationship with the Chelicerata, in a clade termed Arachnomorpha (Arachnata), was in vogue for some time,[58] but, a more recent analysis of Panarthropoda suggests the trilobites are one of two major branches of Artiopoda.[30]"
But above that, the article says that Chelicerata would be Trilobites' closest living relative.  That line could use updating. :)
--Neopeius (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic inconsistency 

message: — Assignment last updated by Gmcb3345 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 412 HONORS

message: I felt that the current front image is not inclusive enough so i made a new image, I feel it is an improvement in pure value, itis also not as disproportonaly focused on a specific time period (Ordovician) as the current one, which has only 1 from the cambrian (cambropallas) and one from the ordovician (isotelus), also 2 of the 6 (phacops and walliserops) are phacopids, anyways, i think it would this would be an improvement
here it is, it contains trilobites from all orders and from 4 geological periods. Abdullah raji (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is poor quality work. The images are low res, poorly cropped and there are distracting white borders. You could have done a much better job with Paint 3D, honestly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i might try again Abdullah raji (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the reverts, but I didn't think they were good changes. Gon's trilobite website is heavily outdated, and doesn't seem to have been updated in more than a decade, so it isn't really a useable source. Also the claim about moulting is poorly explained and has been contested in other literature. I will re-add it back tomorrow with elaboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New front image