Talk:Conulariida

Untitled
This gets the award for the longest run-on sentence with the most undefined vocabulary! --JimmyButler (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to their tendency to be found in rocks representing offshore, even anoxic, marine bottom environments, some scientists have inferred that these animals may have drifted planktonically for some or all of their lives, ultimately being buried in the anoxic sediments beneath the oxic waters in which they lived.


 * Fixed.Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you know an obscure article on Conulariida is being read. Strangely it came up in a high school biology class. One of my fundamentalists students (parent) criticism over accurate classifications of fossils ... not knowing whether this one should be animal or not. Thanks for the fix ... and thanks for the time to create the article in the first place. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Another "Conulariids" page
These should be combined and one eliminated. See Conulariids. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Conulariids is a redirect to this page. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Conulariids as something other than animals?
As for this statement: "... though some doubt exists about whether they should be assigned to the Animalia", may we have a citation? I've not heard of anyone recently doubting the status of conulariids as at least animals. I'm learning new things every day, though! Wilson44691 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can dig it up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In all old and modern publications said that Conulata it is animals. Can you confuse it with "problematica"? Problematica it is fossil organisms whose body plans are so unusual that they cannot be placed in extant phyla. Or idea of not-animal nature of Conulata (algae, fungi or that if it is not animals????) so marginal and absurd that nobody quotes this. The memory it is good but it often mislead. The information should be confirmed by references to the source, otherwise, such information is not reliable.

Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
 * No, I found it on a website, but can't find it again and can't find any other references, so I say we let it go. Should I find it again I can allways edit and source it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles
Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text
 * Full free text


 * The above seems more than enough to remove the statement: "... though some doubt exists about whether they should be assigned to the Animalia". Shall we do it? Wilson44691 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Conulariids as scyphozoans
Actually there is a pretty good case to be made that conulariids were scyphozoans: Most paleontologists I know consider them scyphozoans or "closely related to scyphozoans". Wilson44691 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite normal in the cladistic era. Thank you for the link, it'll be useful. However this analysis is mostly devoted to the problem of the conulariid monophyly. Seems to me the previous Van Iten's paper is more appropriate here. Mithril (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Conulariida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721110941/http://www.unt.edu.ar/fcsnat/INSUGEO/geologia_17/43.htm to http://www.unt.edu.ar/fcsnat/INSUGEO/geologia_17/43.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)