Should there be an article/subsection here on the Burgess Shale - enough misinterpretations (creatures put together upside down, de-composed into several different animals etc)? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe a section, but not an article. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Tell me if I'm wrong, but the paleontological establishment's re-interpretation of the Burgess fauna has pretty much run its course, no? Hallucigenia-related creationist lunacy may still be missional, or does RW show that somewhere else? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
'A history of the evolution of the theory of evolution'?
Don't step on the hallucigenia (for its spines will lodge beneath the skin and 'cause problems'). They make, however, a welcome addition to the aquarium, particularly in the adult form. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The link has hallucigenia in the upside down format. 'Fractured spines causing irritation' is a logical deduction (and the decorative aquarium creature remark is based on the pictures). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)