Talk:Petalilium

Problem
Basically, a load of bunk? See Talk:Nectocaris. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Image
How would a reconstruction of Petalilium (or Vetustovermis) look different from File:Nectocaris_pteryx.jpg? If the file had instead been called "nectocaridid.jpg", would it have been removed from the article? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we reinstall my old reconstruction of Vetustovermis, or should I get back to work on re-reconstructing it?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Your reconstructions of two different animals from different horizons on different continents just happened to look exactly the same? File:Nectocaris_pteryx.jpg describes itself as being of "Nectocaris pteryx"; it does not state that it's a picture of all nectocaridids, and nor should it. I'd be happy for a picture of Petalilium to appear in the article, but not a picture of a related, but distinct animal. We do not illustrate lion with a tiger, and these nectocaridids are separate genera, not just species. Is it even our job to be doing the reconstructions (WP:OR)? What are the sources? --Stemonitis (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask, intend to, or meant to say to put my reconstruction of Vestutovermis in Petalilium. If we're having such problems with the reconstructions of nectocaridids, then in my opinion, we should just put up photographs or diagrams of the fossils themselves, and put up a polite injunction against showing reconstructions until researchers better understand what the nectocaridids were.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)