Talk:Opabinia

body
over sized ant head and bee like body —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.244.218 (talk • contribs) Previous edifying comment courtesy of User:71.209.244.218. --DanielCD 03:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

scale inconsistencies?
The scale image appears to be in discord with the scale image in the H. sparsa article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burgess_scale2.png). Specifically, in the scale image for this article, the H. sparsa is labeled as P. gracilens, and the P. gracilens is labeled as H. sparsa (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Burgess_scale.png). Nervexmachina (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The lengths in this article are from Whittington's big 1970s article. --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

curious/enigmatic
I deleted the word "curious" from the first sentence today for being unencyclopedic. Another user then inserted "enigmatic", asking in the edit summary if "enigmatic" is more encyclopedic than "curious". I'm going to revert. In the case anyone disagrees, please post here first. Sub versive  21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

classification?
The taxonomic classification given here for Dinocarids is not in agreement with the one in Wikispecies. Note that Dinocarida is there described as a phylum, not a class; and that Opabinida is given as one of the order (presumably the one for Opabinia species), not Radiodonta. Does anyone know which one is right? Any new information on current taxonomical classification of Opabinids? (My guess is the Wikispecies people know best; if nobody answers, I'll change the classification to match what I see there.)

Another question: two sources (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang/Chengjiang-Biota.htm and http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Lagerstatten/chngjang/) do not mention Opabinia species in the Maoshantian shales (with which Wikipedia agrees: see Maotianshan shales), but one does (http://wwwalt.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/Stuff/casu30.htm). Does anyone know who is right? If there are Opabinidae in the Maotianshan shales, then I suppose the information should be here (as it currently is); but if there aren't, then it should be deleted from here. (My guess is the source that does mention Opabinia is wrong -- note that it still mentions Opabinia under Arthropods, and that it gives bibliographic sources for most species, but not for Opabinia.) --Smeira 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

re: classification?
Can we not at least say Superphylum: Panarthropoda ? RV 28 January 2007

Size?
Are there any Inforations available about the Size of Opabinia? The size of the proboscis?

--84.57.40.83 11:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It says in the descriptio that the animal was several centimeters long, (4 or so) which is I think wrong? I think it should be 50 cm...

194.53.253.72 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources say that the maximum length of Opabinia is 101 millimeters. Do you have a source that says 50 centimeters?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The link to the Smithsonian is broken
But I'm not sure where that link was supposed to point... is there someone able to recover the original page?

--User:ptoniolo 2007-09-01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptoniolo (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources & snippets
(in addition to those in the "refs" section)

-- Philcha (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing anomalocaridids from arthropods and priapulids
 * The oldest arthropods of the East European Platform
 * Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators
 * Morpho-anatomy of the lobopod Magadictyon cf. haikouensis from the Early Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte, South China
 * A Cambrian gilled lobopod from Greenland
 * Why are arthropods segmented?
 * Arthropod origins
 * A new xenusiid lobopod from the Early Cambrian Sirius Passet fauna of North Greenland
 * Giant Predators from the Cambrian of China
 * Origin, diversification, and relationships of Cambrian lobopods - "comparison between the dorsal spines of Cambrian lobopods and small shelly fossils suggest that Cambrian lobopods might have originated from the Meishucun radiation and diversified in the Qiongzhusi radiation."
 * Arthropod body-plan evolution in the Cambrian with an example from anomalocaridid muscle
 * Phylogeny and life habits of Early Arthropods-Predation in the Early Cambrian Sea
 * Evolution of cephalic feeding structures and the phylogeny of Arthropoda

GA
Hey, I agree that this article is ready to run for GA! Although you do need to sort out the "notes" and "references" sections. Great work!! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image quality
Is there a slightly better version of the 'comparative sizes' image under 'History of discovery' - the text is unreadable on expansion. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can (barely) read the text in the image, mostly because I'm using a desktop computer with a large screen., I'm presuming that you're reading from a tablet or similar handheld device?  Perhaps we could ask  if he could modify the text?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was using a computer too (and clicking on the image): the text is readable now.

Another diagram 'if you fancy it' - the creatures on the diagram from opabinia to hallucigenia as compared to an adult human hand. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)