Talk:Trilobozoa

Animals Low‑importance

Trilobozoa is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

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

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Marine life Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Low

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

Marine life To do:

Have a look at the Marine life WikiProject and sign up.

Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by The Marine life Wikiproject:

Collaboration of the week: Marine life article assessment
Other: See the projects page
Images: Upload any non-copyrighted marine life images to Wikimedia Commons
Featured Articles/Good Articles:
Other: Add {{Portal|Marine life}} to related articles

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.

Kingdom Incertae sedis[edit]

That can't be correct. Shouldn't it be Kingdom Animalia? - Dotdotdotdash 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they are indeed cnidaria. Consensus appears to be slowly moving towards the view that most Ediacaran organisms represent a single clade - potentially, a separate "kingdom" in Linnean terminology. Until this debate is settled (if it ever is) incertae sedis is more appropriate. Verisimilus T 08:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, don't forget that part of the Ediacaran fauna is ancestral to the classical Kingdom Animalia. The Cambrian Explosion happened relatively fast as evolution goes for partly the following reason: It was not a development of wholly new body types, but instead, a proliferation of a small subset of myriad Ediacaran body types, a subset that had already survived a horrible mass extinction event.

A few Ediacaran fossils are definitely cnidaria (although Trilobozoa is not one of them), and another group from that period is a candidate ancestral deuterostome (in other words, a taxon that may or may not include the common ancestor between echinoderms like starfish and urchins and vertebrates like us).

So, as far as the Article is concerned, an entirely extinct subkingdom within Animalia alongside the surviving Subkingdoms Parazoa (sponges and sea plaques) and Eumetazoa (from cnidarians to us) would be nevertheless part of the Kingdom Animalia. That said, why not animals but Incertae sedis at subkingdom level, not full kingdom level? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Or at phylum level, because having a subphylum but not phylum listed is confusing as heck? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genus and families section[edit]

Can someone please complete the section 'Genus and families'? because it is incomplete and only has a few families and genussRugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]

Alnagov is in the middle of revising this article. He removed the Genus and Families section because he was going to revise it.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have a lot of work, so it will probably take me more than a week to update the text and draw anatomical diagrams. Bruce Runnegar errected the familyes Albumaresidae and Tribrachididae without any substantiation, description or diagnosis, these are nomen nudum. Andrey Ivantsov refused families, Albumares does not have significant differences from Tribrachidium to place them in different families, Australian colleagues also do not use these families. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

(Sorry for the late reply) Well, since those families are considered nomen nudum should I edit the Tribrachidium, Albumares and Anfesta articles to not include the rank for those families? Since it may be considered outdated information from my perspective. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(UPDATE) I am now currently remaking the whole article by adding new sections to it. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

I feel like the new article barely uses the references from the old article, along with the fact that some of the references are outdated like how one of the references downright says " However, the six faces of the conical test and three–fold symmetry may reflect some phylogenetic connection with the larger clade of Trilobozoa, a cnidarian class that radiated during the Late Vendian–Early Cambrian and then became extinct". I feel like the article needs a clean up once again with new references. Do any of you think I should try and re-work some of the parts of this article? Since I already have a list of sources that I can use to re-work this article.

And if you're wondering what the sources are, here's a list of them:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/palaios/article-abstract/14/1/86/99713/Biomat-related-lifestyles-in-the-Precambrian
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08120099.2018.1472666
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284800444_Suspension_feeding_in_the_enigmatic_Ediacaran_organism_Tribrachidium_demonstrates_complexity_of_Neoproterozoic_ecosystems (explicitly talks about Tribrachidium, although I feel like it's important to justify how they fed in this article other than just the Tribrachidium one)
https://bioone.org/journals/Paleontological-Research/volume-7/issue-1/prpsj.7.43/Ediacaran-biota--The-dawn-of-animal-life-in-the/10.2517/prpsj.7.43.full (figure 1 on page 3 shows an example of one of the pieces of evidence as to why some Palaeontologists think that the members of the Trilobozoa are sponges)

I might've included something contradicting my first statement about the first reference, although I brought it up because it may also be used to make a section about its interpretations like how the Ausia fenestrata page does. I need to hear a professionals thoughts on this before I may be able to expand on this any further. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]