Talk:Pikaia

I added two external links showing clearer images of Pikaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimiddleton (talk • contribs)

Awsome. --DanielCD 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Antennae

Why is Pikaia always depcted with "antennae"? It seems inaccurate. Living lanclets don't have antennae. Giant Blue Anteater 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also remember Pikaia is not a lancelet, it only resembles them. Dinoguy2 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Todays lanclets could have grown out of them because they found no use for them anymore.

I think I have a better understanding of them. This is original research, but they could've been stalked photoreceptors, but they had no need for them, so they receded into the head, since their use is to only to sense light. However, there are lancelets in the fossil record that lived at the same time as Pikaia, and they had no "antennae", so Pikaia could've been an extinct off-shoot. Also, I saw a picture of a fossil, and I saw the "antennae". Those stalked appendages I confused with the antennae of insects. Giant Blue Anteater 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, again, Pikaia is not a close relative of lancelets, nor did lancelets evolve from Pikaia... at least not as far as I know. Dinoguy2 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I sometimes refer to a prehistoric cephalochordate as a "lancelet". Giant Blue Anteater 21:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Size

This article says 1 1/2 in. or 5 cm, however 1 1/2 in. is closer to 4 cm and 5 cm is almost exactly 2 in. Which is the average? ChozoBoy (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Taphonomy remains mysterious

its preservational mode suggests that it had cuticle, which is uncharacteristic of the vertebrates... overruling the taphonomic argument. The taphonomic argument hasn't actually been expressed. This doesn't transmit much information. Can you improve it?--Wetman (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Vertebrate connections

We don't need an internal list of the vertebrates. Besides, "interesting" is not only vague but non-NPOV -- even if I agree with Pikaia being 'interesting'.

How many specimens?

The intro says that "sixteen specimens are known from the Greater Phyllopod bed," but further along there is mention of "all 114 of the known fossil specimens." Do the 114 include specimens found elsewhere than the Burgess Shale, or is this a contradiction? 850 C (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pikaia. 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/20091015104717/http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/burgess.htm to http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/burgess.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) 01:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: replace the taxobox image

I'd like to propose replacing the image currently in the taxobox with File:202010_Pikaia_gracilens.svg (if the license provided on Commons is valid); it is a more recent reconstruction, is the sole focus of the image, and, to be quite honest, is of higher artistic quality. It might make a better image to lead the article off with. Shuvuuia (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)