Talk:Pikaia

message: I added two external links showing clearer images of Pikaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimiddleton (talk • contribs) 
Awsome. --DanielCD 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Why is Pikaia always depcted with "antennae"? It seems inaccurate. Living lanclets don't have antennae. Giant Blue Anteater 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also remember Pikaia is not a lancelet, it only resembles them. Dinoguy2 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I have a better understanding of them. This is original research, but they could've been stalked photoreceptors, but they had no need for them, so they receded into the head, since their use is to only to sense light. However, there are lancelets in the fossil record that lived at the same time as Pikaia, and they had no "antennae", so Pikaia could've been an extinct off-shoot. Also, I saw a picture of a fossil, and I saw the "antennae". Those stalked appendages I confused with the antennae of insects. Giant Blue Anteater 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, again, Pikaia is not a close relative of lancelets, nor did lancelets evolve from Pikaia... at least not as far as I know. Dinoguy2 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I sometimes refer to a prehistoric cephalochordate as a "lancelet". Giant Blue Anteater 21:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Antennae

message: This article says 1 1/2 in. or 5 cm, however 1 1/2 in. is closer to 4 cm and 5 cm is almost exactly 2 in. Which is the average? ChozoBoy (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: its preservational mode suggests that it had cuticle, which is uncharacteristic of the vertebrates... overruling the taphonomic argument. The taphonomic argument hasn't actually been expressed.  This doesn't transmit much information. Can you improve it?--Wetman (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taphonomy remains mysterious 

message: The intro says that "sixteen specimens are known from the Greater Phyllopod bed," but further along there is mention of "all 114 of the known fossil specimens." Do the 114 include specimens found elsewhere than the Burgess Shale, or is this a contradiction? 850 C (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many specimens? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pikaia. 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/20091015104717/http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/burgess.htm to http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/burgess.htm
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) 01:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd like to propose replacing the image currently in the taxobox with :File:202010_Pikaia_gracilens.svg (if the license provided on Commons is valid); it is a more recent reconstruction, is the sole focus of the image, and, to be quite honest, is of higher artistic quality. It might make a better image to lead the article off with. Shuvuuia (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: replace the taxobox image