Talk:Paleobiota of the Burgess Shale

Canada: British Columbia / Alberta / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missing Loricicaris

See [1], should be placed with the hymenocarines Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize with Chengjiang Fauna Page?

I will admit this is probably entirely down to my own personal preference (regarding both page aesthetics and taxonomic opinions), as I was the one who originally began to format the Chengjiang page, but should the Burgess Shale faunal list be brought into closer alignment with the Chengjiang List by adding further structure and specificity to the taxonomy? For example, splitting Radiodonta from Arthropoda (or at least further splitting them away from euarthropods, as per the supplementary discussion of Moysiuk and Caron 2022), and including both within a great Ecdysozoa, also including scalidophorans? PaleoEquii (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that could be very nice, and would help quite a bit with organizing, once I'am done with the Nuucichthys page, I'll start it. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that many of the specimen counts are wildly inaccurate. For example, Opabinia is stated here as having only 3 specimens. I am unsure where this came from, as even by 2008, it was known from 42 specimens. If it is too difficult to rewrite and source accurate specimen counts (many of them here already lack any number), we may wish to simply remove the column? PaleoEquii (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… good idea. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead, there could be a column for which locality the specimen is known from? This would be very useful information, as Burgess species are often very endemic. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, is there a list of that somewhere? Fossiladder13 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the general organization of the Chengjiang article is translated onto this one, and we no longer need the columns for higher taxa and what not, we should also add one for species so it's not just the genus name. I will start working on the article as well. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goctha, I'll finish the locality sections. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]