This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Aspidella is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
User:Debivort removed a statement that I put in "or fakes planted by God to lure those with little faith into error". I am trying to find the reference where it came from. It can be found in [1] but this is not a reliable souce. Ediacara biota claims this idea came from, "The First Named Ediacaran Body Fossil, Aspidella terranovica" which was the major source of my information for the start of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for drawing my attention back to this. I mis-understood the meaning, but it was clarified in the other article. I'm going to restore it with a tweak. deBivort 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I know that the Ediacara biota cite Gehling et al. (2000) as reference that it was interpreted as "tricks played by a malicious God to promote unbelief", but I cannot find that in article, but if I have overlooked it would be nice if somebody could give me the exact citation with pagenummer. If I'm right it should be erased again. --Jadeginkgo (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seeing as how many species which are considered to be Aspidella, it would be a good thing to mention how sometimes Aspidella specimens deform (Which is the case for Triforillonia).
