Talk:Anomalocaris

message: 72.134.44.224 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should make a category for prehistoric organisms of uncertain status, i.e., the weird thingamajiggers that we're unsure where they fit in the Tree of Life, like Dickinsonia, or Tullimonstrum?--Mr Fink 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would make the mess of categories a lot simpler, and so someone doing research on this kind of topic would have an easier time finding correlations between animals and periods.72.134.44.224 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comment

message: Since the "claw" is the most common fossil evidence (and looks quite different from the fossil of the whole animal), I think it would be useful to add an image of a fossil claw.
Mel 128.138.167.212 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: *Systema: Naturae
**Superdomain: Biota
***Domain: Eucytota
****Kingdom: Metazoa
*****Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
******Branch: Bilateria
*******Grade: Protostomia
********Infrakingdom: Ecdysozoa
*********Superphylum: Panarthropoda
**********Phylum: Lobopodia
***********Class: Dinocarida
************Order: Radiodonta
*************Genus: Anomalocaris
* No, These are arthropods:
*********Superphylum: Panarthropoda
**********Phylum: Arthropoda
***********Class: Dinocarida
************Order: Radiodonta
*************Genus: Anomalocaris--Зелев Андрей (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Anomalocaris (a possible one) 

message: This article lists Dinocarida as a member of Panarthropoda and Lobopodia. Opabinia and Amplectobelua articles lists it under the pseudophylum Problematica. Anomalocarid article lists dinocardians directly under Protostomia and so on.--JyriL talk 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency, please

message: In the infobox on the right side, it mentions a different Phlyum from what the article says it is related to in the first paragraph 207.6.125.46 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The group Lobopodia is related to Arthropoda, but that group is not a subgroup of Arthropoda.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to recent classifications (e.g. Briggs et al. 2008 Journal of Paleontology vol. 82, p. 240; see also Palaeo Database) the anomalocarids, and for that matter the whole class Dinocarida, are listed under the stem group Euarthropoda, i.e. grouping them with the Arthropoda, and not the Onychoporans and Tardigrada. I don't just want to change the classification, as it impacts on quite a few entries, but unless someone has reason to maintain the inclusion in the lobopods I'll change it.Rolf Schmidt (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylum 

message: Could/should this be merged to anomalocarids?  By my reading they're virtually identical, but I'm not a specialist.  WLU (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if only because this article talks about a specific genus of anomalocarid, whereas the article "Anomalocarid" talks about all anomalocarids.  On the other hand, certainly, these two articles need to be individually expanded upon so that they differ in these respects.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I re-read both pages and came to the same conclusion.  Could I get an opinion on the expansion?  Lots of reliance on Gould and Morris' popular books, just because I have them on hand.  WLU (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I will endorse the deletion of this section from the genus page again. The reasons have been discussed before on the family page. Aderksen (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.Wilson44691 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, does no one read the discussion page before they make edits? I'm about to delete the popular culture mention one more time. Aderksen (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular Culture" section 

message: *The "Evolution" of Anomalocaris and Its Classification in the Arthropod Class Dinocarida (nov.) and Order Radiodonta (nov.) (Collins; 1996; Journal of Paleontology) - detailed accont of the comedy of errors. --Philcha (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources & notes

message: I've seen two different restorations of Anomalocaris. One is the familiar "body with fins" type, like in Tim Haines' The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life, but there's another, "centipede", version in Prehistoric Life (all of these kinds of books seem to have the same names). As I'm only a beginner with anomalocarids, which is correct? Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the reconstructions they have at the "Anomalocaris Homepage" .  The one in the 2009 "Prehistoric Life" looks absolutely hideous, in an incompetent, amateurish sort of way.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct restoration 

message: There is ancestors in the ordovician see here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollyoxenfree (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Ancestors? 

message: I came here looking for a figure in Ma, but all it says is "Chengjiang–Burgess shale". And those aren't even wikilinked. (Further investigation shows that these should appear, with links, on the timeline in the Cambrian page, but they don't show up in either of my browsers. I think there may be an issue with the Geological period template... I'll have to leave a comment there.) What's more, after doing some searching I find that the date they first appeared could be 525-520 Ma or 515 Ma depending on the article. Some reliably sourced figures would be nice. 2.99.206.252 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did it live? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anomalocaris. 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/20120512072310/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/fossilised-eyes-of-ancient-super-predator-found.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/fossilised-eyes-of-ancient-super-predator-found.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) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *Raptorial appendages of the Cambrian apex predator Anomalocaris canadensis are built for soft prey and speed
*Apex Predator of the Cambrian Likely Had a Soft Diet - American Museum of National History
 Mooonswimmer 18:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant material regarding recent findings