Talk:Anomalocaris

Size?

In Walking With Monsters and other internet pages say that the Anomalocaris could be 6 feet long, but this page says only 1 meter, in addition, on the innaccuracies page of Walking with Monsters, it does not say that this size is an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.18.66 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oy, Pilcha: Sorry about the Pre-cambrian bit, but I'd like to keep the bit about Anomalocaris being a giant relative to other critters present in the same period. A meter really isn't that fantastic later, but yes, it was certainly the great white shark of the time. And hey (total speculation that will never see print on the main page), maybe that makes Laggania the filter-feeding blue whale? Aderksen (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There a few species of the genus Anomalocaris. As these animals have very soft bodies, their fossils are extremely rare, so it's hard to judge how large each when fully grown. Subject to that:

• Anomalocaris canadensis is the 3-ft giant, found in the Burgess Shale, about 505 MA.
• Laggania cambria seems about 6 in. to 1 foot. Also from the Burgess Shale.
• Sam Gon's pages include fossils and reconstructions of Anomalocaris saron and Amplectobelua symbrachiata from the Chengjiang biota of in the Maotianshan Shales. These fossils date to between 525 and 520 MA. Neither Anomalocaris saron nor Amplectobelua symbrachiata is as large as Anomalocaris canadensis. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussing the size, the first para under "Description" says "Although paper also shows body length estimation of 56 cm (1.84 ft) for genus Anomalocaris, it is size estimation of A. saron which is no longer belong to genus Anomalocaris, and proportion is based on specimen of Innovatiocaris, so it is not suitable body length estimation for Anomalocaris." At least the first part of this sentence is poorly written: "paper shows"? what paper?; "which is no longer belong to" reminds me of "all your bases are belong to us." Unfortunately, I don't know what that is trying to say, so I'm loathe to edit it. Mcswell (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Initial comment

72.134.44.224 20:47, 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.

Perhaps we should make a category for prehistoric organisms of uncertain status, i.e., the weird thingamajiggers that we're unsure where they fit in the Tree of Life, like Dickinsonia, or Tullimonstrum?--Mr Fink 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that would make the mess of categories a lot simpler, and so someone doing research on this kind of topic would have an easier time finding correlations between animals and periods.72.134.44.224 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Images?

Since the "claw" is the most common fossil evidence (and looks quite different from the fossil of the whole animal), I think it would be useful to add an image of a fossil claw. Mel 128.138.167.212 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The thumbnail sketch currently on the page is a little confusing. Using the link to look at the larger image does demonstrate that this is a shot of the ventral surface of the critter, but the thumbnail makes it difficult to discern whether the peytoia-mouth is the mouth or the second stalked eyeball. Anyone aware of any artist's renderings sketched at a different angle that might help to clarify this, or a better way to display the thumbnail of ArthurWeasley's otherwise excellent image? Aderksen (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Classification of Anomalocaris (a possible one)

• Systema: Naturae
  • Superdomain: Biota
    • Domain: Eucytota
      • Kingdom: Metazoa
        • Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
          • Branch: Bilateria
            • Grade: Protostomia
              • Infrakingdom: Ecdysozoa
                • Superphylum: Panarthropoda
                  • Phylum: Lobopodia
                    • Class: Dinocarida
                      • Order: Radiodonta
                        • Genus: Anomalocaris

• No, These are arthropods:

• • • • • • • • • Superphylum: Panarthropoda
                  • Phylum: Arthropoda
                    • Class: Dinocarida
                      • Order: Radiodonta
                        • Genus: Anomalocaris--Зелев Андрей (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency, please

This article lists Dinocarida as a member of Panarthropoda and Lobopodia. Opabinia and Amplectobelua articles lists it under the pseudophylum Problematica. Anomalocarid article lists dinocardians directly under Protostomia and so on.--JyriL ^talk 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Phylum

In the infobox on the right side, it mentions a different Phlyum from what the article says it is related to in the first paragraph 207.6.125.46 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The group Lobopodia is related to Arthropoda, but that group is not a subgroup of Arthropoda.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

According to recent classifications (e.g. Briggs et al. 2008 Journal of Paleontology vol. 82, p. 240; see also Palaeo Database) the anomalocarids, and for that matter the whole class Dinocarida, are listed under the stem group Euarthropoda, i.e. grouping them with the Arthropoda, and not the Onychoporans and Tardigrada. I don't just want to change the classification, as it impacts on quite a few entries, but unless someone has reason to maintain the inclusion in the lobopods I'll change it.Rolf Schmidt (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Could/should this be merged to anomalocarids? By my reading they're virtually identical, but I'm not a specialist. WLU (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, if only because this article talks about a specific genus of anomalocarid, whereas the article "Anomalocarid" talks about all anomalocarids. On the other hand, certainly, these two articles need to be individually expanded upon so that they differ in these respects.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I re-read both pages and came to the same conclusion. Could I get an opinion on the expansion? Lots of reliance on Gould and Morris' popular books, just because I have them on hand. WLU (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Popular Culture" section

I will endorse the deletion of this section from the genus page again. The reasons have been discussed before on the family page. Aderksen (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too.Wilson44691 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, does no one read the discussion page before they make edits? I'm about to delete the popular culture mention one more time. Aderksen (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources & notes

• The "Evolution" of Anomalocaris and Its Classification in the Arthropod Class Dinocarida (nov.) and Order Radiodonta (nov.) (Collins; 1996; Journal of Paleontology) - detailed accont of the comedy of errors. --Philcha (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct restoration

I've seen two different restorations of Anomalocaris. One is the familiar "body with fins" type, like in Tim Haines' The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life, but there's another, "centipede", version in Prehistoric Life (all of these kinds of books seem to have the same names). As I'm only a beginner with anomalocarids, which is correct? Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with the reconstructions they have at the "Anomalocaris Homepage" [1]. The one in the 2009 "Prehistoric Life" looks absolutely hideous, in an incompetent, amateurish sort of way.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Later Ancestors?

There is ancestors in the ordovician see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollyoxenfree (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anomalocaris eyes in the news

Not sure what the actual scientific paper is... AnonMoos (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7376/full/nature10689.html

Discover blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/12/07/anomalocaris-sharp-eyes-predator/ Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture

Uhh.. the Pokemon Anorith is CLEARLY based on Anomalocaris. That should be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.187.122 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia:In Popular Culture:

"When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?

If you cannot answer "yes" to at least one of these, you are just adding trivia. Get all three, and you are adding genuinely encyclopedic content."

That, and "In Popular Culture" sections should not be a laundry list of "spot the monster of the week" trivial appearances.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

When did it live?

I came here looking for a figure in Ma, but all it says is "Chengjiang–Burgess shale". And those aren't even wikilinked. (Further investigation shows that these should appear, with links, on the timeline in the Cambrian page, but they don't show up in either of my browsers. I think there may be an issue with the Geological period template... I'll have to leave a comment there.) What's more, after doing some searching I find that the date they first appeared could be 525-520 Ma or 515 Ma depending on the article. Some reliably sourced figures would be nice. 2.99.206.252 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anomalocaris. 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/20120512072310/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/fossilised-eyes-of-ancient-super-predator-found.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/fossilised-eyes-of-ancient-super-predator-found.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevant material regarding recent findings

• Raptorial appendages of the Cambrian apex predator Anomalocaris canadensis are built for soft prey and speed
• Apex Predator of the Cambrian Likely Had a Soft Diet - American Museum of National History

Mooonswimmer 18:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)