Talk:Aquilonifer

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

Delete Breaks A1, article supplying little to no information on the subject. Pastorma (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If only you were as quick to add information as to request deletion! Ewen (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because A1. No context is not an appropriate reason for deletion. It is obvious the subject of the article is the extinct species Aquilonifer spinosus, even when lacking in detail, there is enough information in the title / on the page allowing editors with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it. Sgcosh (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative possibilities?[edit]

Has anyone considered that the "hanger-ons" may be hitch-hikers like remora? Or perhaps parasites or gestating young forced out of the creature by death or the fossilization process? CFLeon (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes; the authors of the original paper did state that "Alternative possibilities — that the tethered individuals represent a different epizoic or parasitic arthropod — appear less likely." and the BBC article further explains that "Before settling on the unlikely conclusion that they were tiny, floating, prehistoric prams, the team did consider other explanations for the attached pods; they might have been smaller, parasitic creatures of a different species, for example. But being tied on to Aquilonifer's tough and rather inedible shell would be a peculiar strategy for a hungry parasite. It was the variety of shapes seen among the 10 tethered babies that Dr Legg found most convincing. 'We see them develop and begin to resemble the adult form more and more, as they get bigger,' he said." Ewen (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that they discounted EXTERNAL parasites in the original, but I'm asking about 3 other possibilities that I did not see addressed: a) hitch-hikers of the remora sort; b) INTERNAL parasites or c) developing fetuses/young (I'm thinking perhaps a invertebrate marsupial/seahorse type?) forced out of the body by death or the fossilization process. Another possibility is that maybe the young after 'birth' lived off the parent's carcass, like some insects do today. CFLeon (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a) Remora are external parasites so that was considered and discounted b/c) There's no sign that the body is anything other than intact with no sign of 'forced exit' and lastly the individuals in the pods show differing signs of development yet the adult has no sign of being consumed. The authors do not entirely discount other explanations but the 'tethered offspring' finding is the most consistent with the data. Perhaps you should contact the authors with your ideas? Ewen (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]