Talk:Aeger

Untitled
 2 vs 6 Antenna

Even the shity old Holotype does show the 6 Antennas cleary so there cant be a discusion about this.
 * Are you perhaps confusing a biramous appendage for two pairs? The presence of [exactly] two pairs of antennae is a synapomorphy of the entire Crustacea, and while reduction/vestigiality is possible, gaining an extra pair of appendages would be extremely unusual. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And the Earth is Flat ! Well it is unusual but you are anyway wrong The genus Aeger does have 6 Antanna. Becourse you can't verify it does not mean nobody else can. 2 Miniute Google and i found something for people like you.

I'am quite disappointed about you and people like you. So i'am finished here on Wikipedia. You are in any way constructive.


 * The only mention I can find in that article of antennae or antennules is this paragraph:


 * This makes no mention of three pairs of antennae, and in fact explicitly lists the two pairs one would expect of any crustacean. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure and the Earth was created in 7 days becourse a stupid book says so. Count for your self The 4 short things between the to long ones are Antenna as well. If you wand to have them in long what makes the counting more easy.

I agree with you about the higher systemic issue but anatomy dos not change. So to me it look like that nearly all Shrimp do have 6 Antennas. Regardless if they are long or short.

--Hypostome (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One pair of antennae are biramous, and one pair are uniramous. That makes a total of 6 flagella, I suppose, although they are never referred to as such. There are, however, only two pairs of antennae. None of the sources you used claims otherwise, and I assume that you are basing your claims solely on the appearance in their figures. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I'am sure you are absolutely right as ever in your live since birth.

the Outer Antanna pair is called biramous and the 2 inner (or frontal) Antenna are called uniramous. No wait those we can never ever call Antanna becourse they are something completely different. In my mother language we call them simply Antenna becourse they are anotomical and functinal identical two the biramous. I'am sure if i just would like to spent more energy on this i cut find a general Arthropoda Article that would declare all "cephalic sensory flagella" as antenna.

But that changes nothing that it would be mush more constructive i've you had just add this information. together with a link to the Decapod anatomy page where you as dacapod specilist cut add a furrow description of the Dacapod carapace i belive that is the place where this information belongs and not in the Article for a extinct shrimp.

That it is how collective information is assembled. Here on Wikipedia i don't care anymore. As i told you, do it you self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypostome (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is a language issue. If, as I suspect, your native language is German, then usage is the same. The German article on crustaceans explicitly notes that a characteristic of crustaceans is "die Anzahl der Antennen (zwei Paar, weshalb sie manchmal auch als Diantennata bezeichnet werden)". Any claim of three pairs of antennae is anatomically wrong (in either English or German). --Stemonitis (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

'''You don't want to have this article improved. So be it.

If you want to have it in Propper way citated DO IT YOU'R SELF Im to mush stupid for it.''' The best is if you Write all your self becourse YOU KNOW BETTER.

--Hypostome (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I very much want the article to be of the highest quality it can. Why else would I insist on only verifiable information being included? --Stemonitis (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Deleting content without proper Argument  It is fast and easy to delete something, but it take time to correct something. To say that all wrong is not a Argument, especially if you self don't know it any better. All this is no profit work an i don't waste my time for a Narcissistic "about me page".
 * The onus is on the contributor to demonstrate the verifiability of anything he or she adds. Anything that cannot be verified, or which is dubious and not supported by [inline] references, should be removed. This has nothing to do with narcissism. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Image "Aeger elegans fossil.jpg" That is no Aeger elagans, it is a Aeger spinipes (SCHLOTHEIM 1812) ! The Fossil is damaged and was wrong Labed is in Humboldt museum Berlin Exhibition like many other fossils there as well. Btw. so far i know you will need a special premision of Hombuld to publish cocelction items so this is may a Copyright violation (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypostome (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia functions on verifiability, not truth. Do you know a published source which states that the museum specimen is mislabelled, or is this your own identification? Please take up your copyright query with the editor who uploaded the image; if permission were needed, then the license might have to be altered, or potentially the image deleted. While it is appropriately licensed, however, it is the preferred image. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

List of spcies ?

Should be a List of species added ?

Geographical distribution

Maybe here would some improvement be good. So far i know the Triasic Aeger are from a Italian locality. Here would also some clarification good.

Cerin Slovakia vs Cerin France

Maybe it worth it to create a page for the Cerin Lergerstätte that is not as famous as Solnhofen but equally imported. A short mention can be found here : Lithographic_Limestone

--Hypostome (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aeger. 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/20110606064728/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s21/s21rbz1-109.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s21/s21rbz1-109.pdf

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) 11:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)