Talk:Ediacaran biota/Archive 1

message: Given that the International Commission on Stratigraphy decided to name the period Ediacaran instead of Vendian, shouldn't this article be renamed to Ediacaran biota? Google gives more hits to "Vendian biota" than "Ediacaran biota", but on the other hand "Ediacaran fauna" is the most popular (and misleading, if all lifeforms are considered). Google Scholar prefers "Ediacaran biota" over "Vendian biota".--Jyril 18:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way would be fine I think - it's not like you hear one at the grocery store all the time, and the other one not. :-) Stan 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: Given that the comments above agreed that it would be better to merge Vendian biota into Ediacaran biota, why did the oppossite happen? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the merge? 

message: Images won't load, and seem not to exist at all, which is abnormal. What's wrong?
--69.196.212.30 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean :Image:Charnia wardi.jpg, it seems to be removed. Possible reason for this is that it may have been a copyrighted image.--Jyril 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing images 

message: === Multi-celled? ===
Re: "The Ediacaran fossils are the oldest definite multicellular fossils". This may not be certain. Large single cells are possible: .
Some of the fossils are pretty definately jellyfish, and others may be sea pens, which at least today are multicellular.  It is the pre-Ediacaran fossils that may be single cellular as they are simple in shape.  GB 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The animals 

message: Re: "The Ediacaran fossils are the oldest definite multicellular fossils". This may not be certain. Large single cells are possible: .
Some of the fossils are pretty definately jellyfish, and others may be sea pens, which at least today are multicellular.  It is the pre-Ediacaran fossils that may be single cellular as they are simple in shape.  GB 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-celled? 

message: Since we are dealing with period biota rather than locational biota, the new stuff from China still counts as "Ediacaran".
I suggest, although I'm not brave enough to do it myself, that the Assemblage be expanded to include the Doushantuo Formation. I also would like to take Kimberella out of its "miscellaneous" section and include it alongside Vernanimalcula in a new Form-Taxon section for bilaterals.
-- Zimriel 00:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanwhile, in China... 

message: "Some of the fossils are pretty definately jellyfish, and others may be sea pens" - The developmental pattern has cast doubt on this.  Do you have a recent reference making this assertion?
Also, I've removed 'Many believe that some or all of the Ediacarans are precursors to one or more modern phyla that arose in the Cambrian'. The current views place them as extinct classes, phyla or even kingdoms - no mainstream hypotheses that I'm aware of suggest they could be precursors to phyla. Again, I'd be interested to see any references in contradiction!
Verisimilus 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jellyfish? 

message: * McMenamin, Mark A. S. The Garden of Ediacara New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. 
</blockquote>
-----
Vast improvement. I demoted all the headers one step, so they don't clutter up the talk page TOC. And here's the link to the last diff before the rewrite. The extract above is actually from three or four edits before that. | Pat 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Not sure I'm too keen the gallery. The pictures are so small the detail that distinguishes the fossils can't be made out. And the gallery box looks a bit of a mess too, breaking the flow of the article...
This probably isn't very helpful as I can't currently come up with a better suggestion! 
I'm going to have a quick toy with Charnia to see if that helps clear things up a little.
Verisimilus 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Do we really need a picture of a volcano to illustrate where ash comes from? Sand is also mentioned, so perhaps we should add a picture of a sand dune. I propose removing the picture unless someone can come up with a good reason for it to stay. Comments anyone? JohnBagwell 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image was inserted to make otherwise dry section a little more visually stimulating. I agree it's not necessary but it does break things up a little. If you can think of a more relevant picture to replace it with please do! Otherwise I suspect it will eventually go. | Verisimilus 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with the picture, it does make tha analysis of the preservation more interesting, but a relevant picture would be better. Enlil Ninlil 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcano picture 

message: This is more a reminder to me to include a mention of Twitya discs in this article - but if anyone else beats me to it I'll be delighted! Verisimilus T 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of older fossils - e.g. Nimbia