Talk:Paleobiota of the Waukesha Lagerstätte

About lobopod
@Fossiladder13 Well when I saw description of Acheronauta, I have seen that some specimens are originally treated as lobopodian. So then are Waukesha lobopodian valid now? I am in different pc now so I can't check paper right now but at least one of specimen assigned as "lobopodian" remains as it is? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ta-tea-two-te-to I know that some fossils originally treated as myriapods were later redescribed as lobopodians, not sure about the one specimen, but we might need to wait to see. Fossiladder13 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and isn't this page virtually identical to the "Biota" section of Waukesha Biota? Maybe you should replace the section on the other page with this list, or delete that section and just link to this page? What do you think @Hemiauchenia? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fossiladder13 Ok as I see, UWGM 2428 (Fig.5, E in Wendruff et al. 2020) is descripted that considered as poorly preserved specimens with similar appearance with Acheronauta. Since description of Acheronauta mentions about possibly lobopodian in biota, UWGM 2427 is still safe to treat as lobopodian probably. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Waukesha Biota article is large enough to warrant splitting to be honest. I would support merging this article into that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)