Talk:Hallucigenia

message: Aren't the Lobopods essentially Cambrian onychophores?--155.135.55.200 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobopodia Vs Onychophora 

message: You have a link titled:[1] to the artist's interpretation of what halucigenia would have looked like. This interpretation is outdated. The animal is depicted upside down and minus an entire set of "legs". Berkeley has a simple-yet effective depiction of hallucigenia 
note: this depiction actually has the other set of "legs"
-bumbletowne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.10.240.1 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article specifically says that this reconstruction is based on Morris' outdated theory. Dinoguy2 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But in the end we really dont know which way is up, they are just theories of their locomotion, unless more specimens that are good are found, then we will still guess. Enlil Ninlil 06:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems alright: I like the way it looks like it's tromping through a fluff of algae.--Mr Fink 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I started to put kelp type plants around it, then it hit me that I wasn't sure if kelp had developed by then, and so I went the safe route and used algae.--Scorpion451 rant 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's upside down 

message: Three important links have broken (#1, #2 and #7). The article badly needs these links! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: ... has a brief article on Hallucigenia in the current issue. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Week (magazine)

message: I thought I should mention that new examples of this organism have been found in the Burgess Shale which has revealed important new information about it, including details of it's head (previous examples lacked heads) including eyes, mouth, and rings of teeth lining the throat to the gut. Perhaps someone with more capability than I could somehow incorporate the relevant details into the article? Anyway, here's a link to the issue of Nature in which I found this latest info:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14573.html#figures Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Discovery 

message: Dates, however approximate, would be useful - the period on the bar 'is an awfully long time.' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was it? 

message: They have 1-4 components - would they have remained constant throughout the creature's life or would 'new sections' have formed and old ones be shed? (As with exoskeletons and certain animals' constantly replaced teeth) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not known whether or not the spines or the spines' components could be shed.  Until there is fossil evidence demonstrating as such, we must refrain from inserting such speculation into the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do individual creatures have spines with the same number (or matched by pair) of sections or variable numbers - as something could be deduced therefrom.
Sometimes 'answering a passer-by's idle curiosity' does lead to interesting results. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

text: A) Fossils of complete specimens have the same number of limbs and spines, and B) please read WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1-4 components of the spines.
Could my previous section-question be dealt with - when the hallucigenia were actually around would be useful (and for most other 'beasties' as well) 'for those of us who know the dinosaurs disagreed with an asteroid/comet 65 million years ago and few other distant dates. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Any improvement on 520-500 million years ago?193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spines

message: As wiwaxia has an approximate timeframe why just the era here - are  and  suitable sources for giving a date to the creature? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hallucigenia. 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/20160303230105/http://downloads.palass.org/annual_meeting/2002/confabs2002.pdf to http://downloads.palass.org/annual_meeting/2002/confabs2002.pdf
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) 12:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello. I recently wrote a paper on Hallucigenia, and I’ve added the reconstructions from the paper to this article. Based on current and upcoming research, I’m confident that Hallucigenia has annulations. Somewhat less certain, it likely also had antennae and filter feeding setae on the tentacles. PaleoEquii (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to wait until such interpretations are published, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I’m still passively waiting for a fossil of sparsa to preserve the same kinds of fine features as others. We at least know from fossil evidence that hongmeia has many annulations, not sure if the fact hongmeia likely isn’t actually in the same Genus affects that. PaleoEquii (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New interpretation  

message: How did a worm give humans the power of Titans?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3422:F33D:4207:74BC (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source of all living matter is only similar in appearance to the worm Finnigami (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation  

message: Would it make sense to add a popular culture section, for the attack on titan reference? Finnigami (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia generally frowns on "in popular culture" sections that are just trivia (MOS:POPCULT), and based on a cursory examination it seems to me that the reference to it in Attack on Titan is trivial. Furthermore, it seems unclear to me if the appearance of the entity in Attack on Titan is actually explicitly said to be Hallucigenia in any authoritative source, which would be a bare minimum requirement to even consider its inclusion. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just speaking as a reader of the manga, Hallucigenia does indeed appear along with Anomalocaris, Wiwaxia, and Burgess Shale organisms on one panel, but the 'source of all living matter' which figures prominently in the story is not a Hallucigenia. In any case, I don't think it's notable enough to mention on the wiki article. Thereppy (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section? 

message: Based on a quick online check all the references to the identification of the head date to about 2015, so 'recent research' is no longer correct.
And, as said in a section above, could the equivalent date entry to that on Wiwaxia be added (for those of us unfamiliar with the dating system). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description 

message: Why is it named hallucigenia? It looks so much like hallucinogen that the question comes up. I know that "hallucinogen" comes from "to wander in the mind," so this name might be about wandering, but that's just a guess. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added information about the origin of the name to the article. The origin of the name was already alluded to in the lede, but didn't make the connection obvious; thanks for pointing this issue out. Conway Morris named it because of its "bizarre and dream-like appearance", which is to say that the similarity to "hallucinogen" is not a coincidence. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name