Talk:Graptolite

comment
Added text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.

Dlloyd 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added the link to the British and Irish Graptolite Group (BIG-G). --Lenn 02:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

" Linneaus, originally regarded as being 'pictures resembling fossils rather than true fossils', though later workers supposed them to be related to the hydrozoans. "

that seems like a terrible thing to say about linneaus. can someone with more understanding of the subject fix it? pauli 05:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be badly phrased. CFLeon 22:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True, though. I think I remember seeing that their first mention in literature was by a Swiss worker who believed they were fossil plant leaves (one of J Hall's volumes from the 1800's mentioned it in a timeline of Graptolite studies; also discussed Linneaus somewhat). The little guys have had quite a complicated history, as far as our understanding of them changes. -(Guest from SUNY Buffalo) 18 July 2006

Still exist?
The cryptozoology article mentions Graptolites as a group once thought extinct but now observed still in existance. This page, however, doesn't mention this. So 1) is this true? and 2) should it be mentioned here?


 * I have heard this said as well in more than a few locations. Maybe an add would be helpful?


 * Nature had an article about a supposed "living graptolite" several years back. Whether a rhabdopleuran with a spike ("nema?") counts as a graptolite is something likely to start arguments between graptolite paleontologists. Planktonic graptolites are definetely extinct, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.129.102 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * In the book "Fylogeneze živočišné říše" (The Phylogeny of Animalia, 2006) by Czech scientist Jan Zrzavý is mentioned, that graptolites are actualy group of pterobranchia. The "living graptolite" is evidently pterobranchia and at the same time its body parts able to phossilize looks realy like graptolit. Its name shoud be Cephalodiscus graptolitoides.--Dr. Killer (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The paper being referred to above was by Dilly. He claimed, with a largely agreeing accompanying editorial by Rigby, that a spinose process on the living Cephalodiscus satisfied the only barrier to inclusion of all of the pterobranchs into a single group. Most graptolite workers at the time rejected this, and it has not been supported over time. However, several recent papers, including one in press by Melchin et al. (PLoS 1) argue for expansion of the graptolithina to include the rhabdopleurans (but excluding the cephalodiscans), making Rhabdopeuurus a living graptolite (technically). This is a bit of a cheat in terms of cryptozoology/importance, as this move involves grouping all benthic (bushy and encrusting) graptolites, as well as the traditional planctic graptos within an inclusive clade a group. This makes a rhabdopleurus a graptolithid, but not a graptoloid, i.e., not a member of the main subclade of graptolites that most people think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.142.96 (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not quite accurate, as several authors have now published on the phylogeny of Rhabdopleura being placed within the Graptolithina, which this article is about. It even mentions several of these articles within the main text. While the accuracy of this classification may be still debated, it does group Rhabdopleura within the clade of graptolites.Rolf Schmidt (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Range Chart: Graptoloidea / Anisograptoloidea
The anisograptids were a polyphyletic group of planktic graptolites with siculae and bithecae; they stop appearing in the Ordovician. The graptoloids, generally defined as either the planktic graptolites with siculae or those without bithecae.

Thus, the ranges shown on this chart are pretty much random.


 * Yes, this range chart of the different groups is quite inaccurate, and needs to be redone. For example the monograptids range from the Ordovician right through to the Carboniferous, whereas the other groups don't and die out much earlier. I work with a graptolite expert and will consult on a more accurate chart. However, I may need help with the coding as I've not done this before.Rolf Schmidt (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)