Talk:Parvancorina

Affinity: review sentences.
Maybe it's just me, but the first two sentences in the Affinity section leave me wondering what meaning they are intended to convey. Is there somebody with knowledge of this topic who could perhaps re-write them? &#34;Pij&#34; (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with incertae sedis: we don't really know what it is. Parvancorina is suspected of being an arthropod by a lot of researchers due to its superficial similarity to trilobite protaspid shields, but, its growth habit is not suggestive of an arthropod.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, missing my point. I'm not talking about the content of the sentence, but its structure. How do the words "is the Cambrian trilobite-like arthropods" relate to the rest of the sentence? Are they an artefact of some previous cut-and-paste, or are they supposed to be linked somehow? &#34;Pij&#34; (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that "Cambrian trilobite-like arthropods" is an artefact of sources which talk about Parvancorina's similarity to the protaspid-stage of trilobite larvae, and of various primitive Cambrian arthropods like Skania and Naraoia. Perhaps simply going with "primitive arthropods" would be less confusing?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I excised "is the Cambrian trilobite-like arthropods" altogether. Is it clearer now with my modifications?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I can see the intention of the sentence, I see that simply excising "is the" would have been the main requirement. Those two words, it would seem, were an artefact that didn't belong at all. Yes, it is clear now. Thanks. &#34;Pij&#34; (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)