Talk:Hallucigenia

Taxobox
Added a tentative taxobox. Seems that onychophores are uncertainly in Arthropoda, so that's what I used, but put in ?'s to note the uncertainty.Gwimpey 02:47, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Taxoboxes aren't really appropriate for unclassified organisms, so I removed it. Gdr 00:01:59, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Lobopodia Vs Onychophora
Aren't the Lobopods essentially Cambrian onychophores?--155.135.55.200 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

72.134.44.224 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia, but I noticed that two categories were virtually parallel and should have links between each other. The Cambrian Category holds a mishmash of geologic periods, vertebrates and invertebrates. The Prehistoric Arthropods category holds several Cambrian arthropods that are not in the Cambrian category. So, I added several Cambrian invertebrates (some of them of uncertain classification, but it is much easier to find them in one unified category). It might make sense to have a sub-category in Prehistoric Arthropods for prehistoric invertebrates of uncertain classification, or vice versa. To try to make this little post understood so it can be discussed, I will post this in the talk page for Anomalocaris, Anomalocarid, Aysheaia, and Hallucigenia. Hope this helps Wikipedia's support of a nice little-known topic.

It's upside down
You have a link titled:[1] to the artist's interpretation of what halucigenia would have looked like. This interpretation is outdated. The animal is depicted upside down and minus an entire set of "legs". Berkeley has a simple-yet effective depiction of hallucigenia  note: this depiction actually has the other set of "legs"

-bumbletowne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.10.240.1 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The article specifically says that this reconstruction is based on Morris' outdated theory. Dinoguy2 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But in the end we really dont know which way is up, they are just theories of their locomotion, unless more specimens that are good are found, then we will still guess. Enlil Ninlil 06:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They acctually have found some more at some of the other cambrian sites in places like China; apparently the little critters were pretty successful. Don't know much beyond that they found some, however, not many pictures of them. I added a picture of one I created based on the information I found here and else where, like Gould's book (even though it was published before the "right" presentation he had some good fossil pictures.) See if I made any glaring errors. I made it blue because it's easier to make out the details in that color, plus the whole blue underwater lighting thing.-- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems alright: I like the way it looks like it's tromping through a fluff of algae.--Mr Fink 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I started to put kelp type plants around it, then it hit me that I wasn't sure if kelp had developed by then, and so I went the safe route and used algae.-- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken links
Three important links have broken (#1, #2 and #7). The article badly needs these links! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Week (magazine)
... has a brief article on Hallucigenia in the current issue. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New Discovery
I thought I should mention that new examples of this organism have been found in the Burgess Shale which has revealed important new information about it, including details of it's head (previous examples lacked heads) including eyes, mouth, and rings of teeth lining the throat to the gut. Perhaps someone with more capability than I could somehow incorporate the relevant details into the article? Anyway, here's a link to the issue of Nature in which I found this latest info: Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting a face to it
In the news today - and  are probably good enough references. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The above two references have pictures - the accessible part of the Nature article referred to does not. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a video:
 * it is claimed it has a head with two eyes and a nematode-like mouth. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * When will someone put a face to the WP images? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps has something in the works? FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. Just need to post the lineart, and reinstall a workable version of Photoshop.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be a 'sequence of images of how hallucugenia was imagined' - spines as legs, right way up with blob head, current view.'

Would the tentacles have been used to stir up the seabed surface sand to displace food particles and move it in the direction of the mouth, or to grab hold of the food? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Still faceless. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been dragging my podia about it, but what do you think of my new reconstructions?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks cool, but I know next to nothing about invertebrates, perhaps post it at the paleoart review? FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the boost of confidence.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(Reset) They look more decorative than the blob-head presumptions :)

Would it be possible to also have 'actual size' representations (as 'fingernail-width to thumb-length' would fit even on a phone screen). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

When was it?
Dates, however approximate, would be useful - the period on the bar 'is an awfully long time.' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Spines
They have 1-4 components - would they have remained constant throughout the creature's life or would 'new sections' have formed and old ones be shed? (As with exoskeletons and certain animals' constantly replaced teeth) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not known whether or not the spines or the spines' components could be shed. Until there is fossil evidence demonstrating as such, we must refrain from inserting such speculation into the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do individual creatures have spines with the same number (or matched by pair) of sections or variable numbers - as something could be deduced therefrom.

Sometimes 'answering a passer-by's idle curiosity' does lead to interesting results. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A) Fossils of complete specimens have the same number of limbs and spines, and B) please read WP:NOTAFORUM.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1-4 components of the spines.

Could my previous section-question be dealt with - when the hallucigenia were actually around would be useful (and for most other 'beasties' as well) 'for those of us who know the dinosaurs disagreed with an asteroid/comet 65 million years ago and few other distant dates. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Any improvement on 520-500 million years ago?193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Timeline
As wiwaxia has an approximate timeframe why just the era here - are and  suitable sources for giving a date to the creature? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hallucigenia. 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/20160303230105/http://downloads.palass.org/annual_meeting/2002/confabs2002.pdf to http://downloads.palass.org/annual_meeting/2002/confabs2002.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) 12:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The article claims in the "Affinity" section, correctly if one concurs with the 2017 article by Caron et al ("Cambrian suspension-feeding lobopodians and the early radiation of panarthropods"), that Hallucigenia is "interpreted as a stem-group onychophoran." The introduction claims, citing a 2015 New York Times article that I don't presently have free access to, that it is "considered by some to be an early ancestor of the living velvet worms," which are, of course, onychophorans. As I understand the concept of "stem-group" it includes both the last common extinct ancestor of a particular group and various side chains descended from that common ancestor that are distinct from the chain leading to the extant living species. Caron et al depict both extinct hallucigeniids and extinct luolishaniids as occupying positions on respective side-chains derived from the last common ancestor of the pan-onychorons (i.e., the entire group of both extinct and extant animals) that is more closely related to velvet worms than to either living tardigrades or other living arthropods). Since the 2017 Caron research is more recent than whatever research the lay 2015 New York Times article referenced, which article may or may not have used the term "ancestor" to mean a direct ancestor, I suggest we modify the introduction to say "considered by some to be closely related to living velvet worms" or "considered by some to share an early ancestor with living velvet worms."  I think that I should at least wait until next month when I have free access to the New York Times article to make one of these changes in the Introduction.Ray Glock-Grueneich (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

New interpretation
Hello. I recently wrote a paper on Hallucigenia, and I’ve added the reconstructions from the paper to this article. Based on current and upcoming research, I’m confident that Hallucigenia has annulations. Somewhat less certain, it likely also had antennae and filter feeding setae on the tentacles. PaleoEquii (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to wait until such interpretations are published, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I’m still passively waiting for a fossil of sparsa to preserve the same kinds of fine features as others. We at least know from fossil evidence that hongmeia has many annulations, not sure if the fact hongmeia likely isn’t actually in the same Genus affects that. PaleoEquii (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Explanation
How did a worm give humans the power of Titans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:3422:F33D:4207:74BC (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The source of all living matter is only similar in appearance to the worm Finnigami (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Popular culture section?
Would it make sense to add a popular culture section, for the attack on titan reference? Finnigami (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia generally frowns on "in popular culture" sections that are just trivia (MOS:POPCULT), and based on a cursory examination it seems to me that the reference to it in Attack on Titan is trivial. Furthermore, it seems unclear to me if the appearance of the entity in Attack on Titan is actually explicitly said to be Hallucigenia in any authoritative source, which would be a bare minimum requirement to even consider its inclusion. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just speaking as a reader of the manga, Hallucigenia does indeed appear along with Anomalocaris, Wiwaxia, and Burgess Shale organisms on one panel, but the 'source of all living matter' which figures prominently in the story is not a Hallucigenia. In any case, I don't think it's notable enough to mention on the wiki article. Thereppy (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This page just spoiled the ending of attack on titan for me, so I definitely think it should be changed in some way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.129.251 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Description
Based on a quick online check all the references to the identification of the head date to about 2015, so 'recent research' is no longer correct.

And, as said in a section above, could the equivalent date entry to that on Wiwaxia be added (for those of us unfamiliar with the dating system). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Name
Why is it named hallucigenia? It looks so much like hallucinogen that the question comes up. I know that "hallucinogen" comes from "to wander in the mind," so this name might be about wandering, but that's just a guess. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I just added information about the origin of the name to the article. The origin of the name was already alluded to in the lede, but didn't make the connection obvious; thanks for pointing this issue out. Conway Morris named it because of its "bizarre and dream-like appearance", which is to say that the similarity to "hallucinogen" is not a coincidence. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)