Talk:Trilobita

From Palaeos.org

Jump to: navigation, search
Line 16: Line 16:
::I propose we give the "trilobitomorphs" their own page(s), though we should first mention them on this page.--[[User:Stanton|Stanton]] 16:46, 24 February 2007 (PST)
::I propose we give the "trilobitomorphs" their own page(s), though we should first mention them on this page.--[[User:Stanton|Stanton]] 16:46, 24 February 2007 (PST)
:::It might be possible to use "Trilobitomorpha" for the larger trilobite clade - i. e. anything more closely related to trilobites than any living arthropods (I believe I have seen this done in recent publications, but unfortunately I can't recall the references). Seeing as ''Naraoia'' and cronies are probably the closest known relatives of "true" trilobites, it's largely a matter of personal taste whether to include them in Trilobita or not--[[User:Christopher|Christopher Taylor]] 09:58, 25 February 2007 (Perth)
:::It might be possible to use "Trilobitomorpha" for the larger trilobite clade - i. e. anything more closely related to trilobites than any living arthropods (I believe I have seen this done in recent publications, but unfortunately I can't recall the references). Seeing as ''Naraoia'' and cronies are probably the closest known relatives of "true" trilobites, it's largely a matter of personal taste whether to include them in Trilobita or not--[[User:Christopher|Christopher Taylor]] 09:58, 25 February 2007 (Perth)
 +
:::: In one senseit's like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". On the other hand, including Naraoia to the exclusion of many other lower cambrian arthropods (> 150 from Chengjiang alone) just means a line has been moved a bit. BTW, Fortey seems to prefer Arachnomorpha, though I don't remember why. [[User:RogerPerkins|RogerPerkins]] 15:10, 25 February 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 23:10, 25 February 2007

Personal tools