Wikipedia

Talk:Fossils of the Burgess Shale

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic List of critters
Learn more about this page
Good articleFossils of the Burgess Shale has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Possible structure

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
That's a broader scope than I had anticipated - but I think it will work splendidly. Caron's recent palaeocommunity analysis should be a good source for the summary of animals found. I'll bagsie that bullet point for starters. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
"a broader scope than I had anticipated"? I'd consider it seriously incomplete without any of these, and would fail it at GA ("broad coverage") if not remedied, never mind FA. --Philcha (talk)
I don't know Caron's recent palaeocommunity analysis, so you're better placed than me to do the "census" bit. I'd also say it's the highest priority, as we already have a ton of sources (and pastable text) for the rest, and covering the "usual suspects" w/o a census would probably cause loss of perspective. I think you've just put yourself in the firing line :-) --Philcha (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Here it is... Caron, J. B.; Jackson, D. A. (2008). "Paleoecology of the Greater Phyllopod Bed community, Burgess Shale". Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology. 258 (3): 222–256. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.05.023.
Now to hope my weekend doesn't become as busy as it looks like it might... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments1 person in discussion
This section is transcluded from Talk:Burgess Shale/Sources. The link to Talk:Burgess Shale/Sources can be used to add comments to it.

General

edit

Location and topography

edit

Geology & taphonomy ("How the fossil beds were formed")

edit


Similar beds of similar age

edit

History of fossil collecting there

edit

Summary of fossils

edit

Theoretical significance

edit

Images

edit


- - - - - - - End of transcluded text. Please add new discussion below this line; for the first one, edit the whole page - - - - - - -

Scientific points

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The article's looking very good so far - your writing style is very agreeable these days! I appreciate you re-writing my contributions into accessible English - I had taken the approach of getting the information in there in any form, with the intent of re-writing it later once it had taken shape a little.

I understand, I sometimes do the same, especially if the phone rings or the cat miaows. --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd best give the rest of the piece a quick skim, although unfortunately I don't have time to do anything more than that. I picked up on a couple of scientific points:

  • There is now compelling evidence that the BS was oxygenated. Anoxia cannot account for the preservation
  • Burrowing is also present in the BS; I think there's a paper discussing burrowing at the Chengjiang, which shows both that things are oxic, and that the sediments were partially disturbed
OK, add it and the citations. I thought Caron & Jackson (2006; "Taphonomy") already made those points quite well. --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • There is good evidence that the sediment was bound in places (I think microbes are the only suggested reason for this)
Go for it. Can we w-link to Cambrian substrate revolution as well as microbial mat? --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • 'THE defining feature' of BS type pres - this def needs sourcing; I'm not sure there's agreement on a definition of BStp.
I thought Butterfield (2003) was spot on - and my impression is that this is not new, see Wonderful Life (1989 - not quite BCE, but ...). --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Odontogriphus was a shell-less mollusc and is preserved. (FWIW there are other unpublished shell-less molluscs in the BS.) There are in fact quite a few things which could be tweaked in this paragraph - perhaps I should take a look at it.
Does that mean you think the Halwaxiid debate has been settled? --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
BTW has Butterfield published anything on this since Pal. Ass. 2007? --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anyhow, I like the shape things are taking, and look forward to doing a bit more work on the article myself! In the meantime, do you think it's worth getting some publicity at did you know? We'd need to nominate it today (or tomorrow at the latest). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That occurred to me, although the hook items I saw (Anomalocaris: The comedy, Aliens VI: Hallucigenia) did not seem to fit too well with the article's title. But if we can get away with using the title just as a link, not in the hook text, they would be good - unless you had something else in mind. --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hiding the title behind a wikilink is fair game. Alternatively, we could go with something as broad as "The fossils of the Burgess Shale prompted a reinterpretation of the history of life" [or something a little more accurate]. (I'll address the other points anon.) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

List of critters

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I think it's long enough - currently Marrella, Opabinia, Anomalocaris and Hallucigenia representing the panarthropods, which started all the fuss; Wiwaxia, Odontogriphus and Orthrozanclus representing lophotrochozoan victims of Wiwaxia War I; Canadia to show that fossils can be fun even if not involved in a phylogenetic phrenzy; chordates, well, you know why.

However any selection is going to be controversial - if you explain it, someone will grumble about "editorialising" (that happened at Talk:Evolutionary history of life/GA1); if you don't, someone will demand a big essay, with citations, on why this particular lot of critters is particularly notable. Would it be worthwhile listing all the documented Burgess critters and linking to it? I'm thinking of a table sortable on name, date discovered (Anomalocaris will be interesting), site where first found, classification (yes, that's a can of invertebrates) - plus non-sortable "Comments" column (or head it "Brief description" to ward off WP:zealots). See the results tables at Alexander_Alekhine#Summary_of_results_in_competitions for an idea of how it would look. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that so long as the text itself makes clear why the critters we mention are particularly notable, we should be okay. I can't think of any other 'must-includes' and if anybody wants to suggest why we are lacking, let's hear them out. No-one in their right minds is going to ask us to detail every single organism on this page, and I think that the current list is a great sample and fits the bill perfectly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
None of the trilobites are mentioned except Tegopelte gigas in the references. It might be worth mentioned the major genera at least briefly, even if they're not as notable: Olenoides, Elrathia, etc. Maybe a list of ten or twelve? Metaknowledge (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's not room for every phylum - e.g. the list excludes priapulids (Louisella), tardigrades, brachiopods, echinoderms; and excludes some puzzles, e.g. Iotuba chengjiangensis (was it a phoronid or a priapulid?), Lingulosacculus nuda (a phoronid or a brachiopod?). Arthropods are represented by Marrella, notable for not being a trilobite. --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Maybe what we need is to create another article that is simply a list, ordered by phylum, with notes as appropriate, in table format. Then there can be no qualms about not including stuff on this article, because less notable stuff still gets a mention as a member of the Burgess shale biota. Metaknowledge (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
My "to do" list is already quite long. If you fancy a go, your first priority would be getting citations. Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Faunal_composition could be a start - but only a start.
Actually, I'd love to do this, but I seem to be a little ignorant about this already - all I need as far as citations go would be proof that the organism was represented and then proof for any claims I make in the notes section, right? Or am I totally missing something? Metaknowledge (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Or should we go for simplistic like List of Chengjiang Biota species by phylum? I was thinking a table with sections genus, phylum, and comments/notes, but that might be expansionist. By the way, there really should be articles for each of these genera, but I noticed three we already mentioned (Tegopelte, Iotuba, and Lingulosacculus) don't even have articles... maybe that's a greater priority. Metaknowledge (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Making a list of genera / species of Burgess biota and doing it well would be a big job:
Articles about Burgess genera not already in WP may be a better approach (or easier!) if there are citations and if you can find or WP articles to link to the new articles, so that the new articles are not orphans. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
In response to points raised: as for non-eumetazoans, that's a big issue because I can't find a free, internet-accessible complete list of genera (not going to sweat about species for this) and while it looks like sponges are covered, I can't be sure of course, and plants, algae, etc are most definitely an problem.
I hadn't thought about trace fossils, but I wouldn't worry about that unless their creator is unknown... I don't know too much about them.
For classification debates, they will either be explained in the notes section or if they extend to the phylum level I would list them with slashes in order of support (no more than 3 or so).
I think I can find (a few) sources and the more dubious, the more debate, the more citations!
So, my final stance is that a list is a dealbreaker - I can deal with the other obstacles but not this one. If there is no list, I'll go back to article creation on the genus level. Metaknowledge (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Fossils of the Burgess Shale

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fossils of the Burgess Shale's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Caron2006":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Preservation

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I'm removing the "cn" tag as Butterfield 2003 (next sentence) covers this. From what I've seen FAC appears to dislike blue smallpox. If you think alternative defs of BS preservation need to be added, go for it - with citations, no maintenance tags, please. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW you never did explain the "verification needed" tag you left in Mollusc#Fossil_record over 6 months ago. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

"The elements of the organism with a high preservation potential are those constructed of recalcitrant carbonaceous compounds" is dubious and probably inaccurate, e.g. Wiwaxia sclerites are not mineralized, and chitin appears to be a major candidate for BS preservation. I'll sort that out. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've made tried to make this less jargon-laden and to avoid the "recalcitrant carbonaceous compounds" issue, see what you think. --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may be right about "This pattern may sometimes help palaeontologists, by indicating whether a group of organisms could have fossilized in a particular type of fossil bed, or by suggesting whether a body part was fairly tough like an arthropod limb (preserved as flat film) or very soft like a part of the gut (preserved as a solid piece of mineral)" needing clarification - I'll leave the tag in for a while to make me think about it. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to clarify how it helps, see what you think. --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW I agree w your HTML comment about Canadian dialect, and I'm sure your hosts would agree, as there's bit of nationalism around the BS - but you'll have to copyedit when the content is stable, as I have no idea of the subtle differences between US and Canadian usage, spelling etc. --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, Canadian uses Englsih spelling [e.g. colour], but American words [e.g. railroad, sidewalk]. I'll give it a once over when necessary (and deal with the other points when I'm awake). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree that "Beds may have subsequently been re-disturbed, and consequently may represent a 'time-averaged' community ..." (Caron & Jackson 2008) is a bit isolated. I didn't see in the source any explanation of how they might have been re-disturbed, what the evidence is, and how severe the re-disturbance can be (e.g. into the next higher burial layer). Have i missed something. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was probably me trying to qualify 'time-averaged' a bit - I think the term needs explaining, although I did a rather dire job. Other sources may be more useful? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I interpreted "time-averaged" in Caron & Jackson (2008) as referring to the fossils that clearly ceased to be alive before the burial events - molts & dissociated body parts.
Do you have some memories of sources that mention re-working? --Philcha (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The lagerstätten a pause for breath in the radiation of animals?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SCM (1986) says the BS represents a pause for breath in the radiation of animals, which temporarily accelerated again in the mid-Ordov. The Chengjiang fossils are as similar to the BS ones as you could expect with a 15 MY gap, implying that the CEX ended before about 520 million years ago - but are there any sources for that? I don't know how much has been found at Sirius Passet or whether anyone's suggested how long that is after the actual end of the CEX. Can you fill in any of the gaps? --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

1986 was a long time ago... there is no real definition of the "explosion"; every author has his own ideas about it. There was certainly a radiation in the Ordovician, and things probably settled down in the Late Cambrian (perhaps this is an illusion caused by extinctions?), but diversity is still increasing in the Burgess (Caron 2008). What we know is that there was nothing complicated in the mid-Ediacaran, and lots of complicated things by the Chengjiang, but we don't know much about in-between. This means we can't really say whether the difference between CJ and BS was at the same rate as before-hand, or slower. In 1986, understanding of the Ediacarans was limited, so it looked like everything appeared between the base of the Cambrian and the CJ - a relatively short time. But if we include the preC 'fuse', suddenly the explosion looks less sharp. I remember having a discussion with Graham Budd on these very pages where he derided any definition of the length of the explosion - so I think it's something best avoided! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stratigraphy

edit

Here's the most up-to-date discussion on stratigraphy: Collom, C. J.; Johnston, P. A.; Powell, W. G. (2009). "Reinterpretation of 'Middle' Cambrian stratigraphy of the rifted western Laurentian margin: Burgess Shale Formation and contiguous units (Sauk II Megasequence); Rocky Mountains, Canada". Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology. 277: 63–85. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.02.012.

Significance

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments2 people in discussion

I've had a look at this section and I feel it's a little confused. It might help to lay out a structure for it - here's how I might modify your existing structure:

  • The traditional view is that animals appear from no-where at the base of the Cambrian. A few examples of why: SSF, sudden trilobites/echinoderms, poor stratigraphy.
  • No-body thought there was Precambrian life
  • Problems this caused: Darwin's confusion
  • Explosive interpretation
  • Gould's view on the BS as a post-explosion melange
    • Lots of phyla-from-nowhere
  • More recently, we have discovered:
    • Diverse Ediacaran biota (including modern phyla?)
    • Gradual increase in Cambrian complexity
    • Other Cambrian lagerstatte
    • How to classify oddballs
  • How is the BS significant now?
    • Potential of stem theory - relationships between modern groups, and their ancestral forms

Feel free to tweak as you please - if we agree on a structure it will make copy-editing each other a little easier. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's plenty of room for discussion - I was feeling my way through the sources, and trying to minimise the confusion caused by earlier discoveries that were dissed.
I've replicated your structure in order to comment:
  • The traditional view is that animals appear from no-where at the base of the Cambrian. A few examples of why: SSF, sudden trilobites/echinoderms, poor stratigraphy.
I'd prefer "pre-1950s view" to "traditional view" as it's more explicit and AFAIK accurate - you know the jokes about the meaning of "historic" in the USA. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
By "poor stratigraphy" do you mean assigning Spriggs' finds to the Cambrian? --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was more referring to the poor resolution, which didn't let people work out how much relative time separated various beds, amplifying the sense of explosion. It's still difficult to correlate many strata today. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, see Aleksey's post and my response, which I've turned into a separate thread because it's a big subject in it's own right. I think it's a matter of presentation. For me the main significance of the BS fossils consists of: impact on bilaterian phylogeny; and challenges it presents to evolutionary theory. The latter is the easier to explain initially, and the natural headline for that is Darwin's comments; then explain the background (no preCm fossils in 1859; preCm fossils found 1868 onwards but dismissed, etc.)
  • No-body thought there was Precambrian life
Only after Seward's vociferous but mistaken denials from 1931 onwards. As far as I can see, Walcott's findings were accepted 1883-1931. I read through the whole sorry story in Schopf's article (PNAS) / chapter (Cradle of Life) and glossed over the details, as I thought things were going to get quite complex enough from the 1970s onwards. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Problems this caused: Darwin's confusion
No, I think that's got to be the start-point, both because D (?)first formulated the problem and because the relevant finds occured entirely after the first edition of Origin and mostly after D's death in 1882. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Darwin's confusion doesn't make sense unless the reader knows that (1) he thought that life appeared suddenly at the base of the C; and (2) there was no evidence of PreC life at the time of OOS. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think your point (2) is matter of presentation - it's the diffence between (a) "There was no evidence of PreC life at the time of OOS, so D found the CEx a major difficulty for his theory"; and (b) "D found the CEx a major difficulty for his theory, because there was no evidence of PreC life at the time of OOS". I think (b) is a better headline, because we'll need to summarise the (mis-)interpretation of fossils 1868-1947 in order to set the context for Whittington & co's re-assessment of the BS fossils.
I think your "Darwin's confusion doesn't make sense unless the reader knows that (1) he thought that life appeared suddenly at the base of the C" is not quite right - D's response to the puzzle was to assume a long, cryptic history of life, see e.g. Origin_of_Species#Geologic_record. --09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Explosive interpretation
  • Gould's view on the BS as a post-explosion melange
    • Lots of phyla-from-nowhere
I think omitting mention of the "long, cryptic" view makes it seem like the "explosive" interpretation was already unchallenged, in which case the BS fossils would have been much less important. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's not specifically Gould's view, in the 1970s Whittington produced a phylo diagram often described as a "phylogenetic lawn", which IIRC Brysse reproduces (along with everyone else). Wonderful Life was out-of-date by the time it was published, because Briggs & Whittington published their first cladogram in 1981. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how BS says anything about the long, cryptic viewpoint. I'm trying not to get into details here, but perhaps you could outline what you think the BS contributed to the debate? (I'm not entirely sure of its direct relevance myself). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Logically you're right, the fact that in the 1970s the BS was the only known big early Cm lagerstätte means its fossils can be interpreted either way, "it all happened even faster and more flamboyantly than we thought" or "this shows how much remains cryptic". It looks to me as if the BS fossils were conscripted (esp by Gould) on the side of punk eek against gradualism, and Gould reinforced this by following Seilacher's "Vendiobionta" interpretation of the Ediacarans. I'll recheck the existing refs on that point. --Philcha (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • More recently, we have discovered:
    • Diverse Ediacaran biota (including modern phyla?)
    • Gradual increase in Cambrian complexity
That does not appear to be a universal view, see the sources I cited (SCM 2000; Marshall). The similarities between Chengjiang and BS make it appear that the main animal groups appeared before Chengjiang, although I could find no sources for that. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking of Caron 2006, but probably over-extending its scope. Either way, I guess we remain uncertain about how long the 'explosion' took (however we choose to define it). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Too right about the uncertainty. Somewhere (poss in Cambrian explosion rather than here) I think we should use "The "Cambrian explosion" is a poorly-defined term that refers to a period of time some 600–500 years ago" - The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla (Budd, 2003), which ties in with your comment about a discussion in which Budd said is was unrealsitic to tery to define the time-range precisely. --Philcha (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Other Cambrian lagerstatte
    • How to classify oddballs
Strictly speaking this should follow how the BS fossils appeared to favour the "explosive" interpretation, as Briggs & Whittington published their first cladogram in 1981, before any of the Early Cm soft-bodied discoveries outside the BS. The "counter-revolution" was based on theoretical grounds, and led by the "revolutionaries" themselves. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • How is the BS significant now?
    • Potential of stem theory - relationships between modern groups, and their ancestral forms
"How is the BS significant now?" is a tricky question, because it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The cladistics revolution changed views of the "weird wonders", but has not resolved current debates about the timing of and reasons for the metazoan radiation. I have a feeling that, while the BS will (per Caron & Jackson) produce new fossils, its theoretical heyday was in the 1970s and 1980s - unless it produces a new fossil that causes another paradigm shift. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
We should The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla (Budd, 2003) for explanation that random extinctions of (sub-)lineages have exaggerated the differences between the extant phyla. --Philcha (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think our difference over the situation before Whittington's 1971 paper on Marella 1971 are just presentational. The idea of Precambrian life only became respectable after Tyler & Barghoorn's 1955 paper on the Gunflint chert became widely accepted, but there was still a 1600 MY gap between Gunflint & the Cambrian.
I'm not sure about the present-day significance of the BS, as I said I think its theoretical heyday was in the 1970s and 1980s. What's your view? Perhaps if we agree on where we are to-day and on what the situation was 1950-1971 we can find a route between these points. --Philcha (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
How would you counter the suggestion that the B.S. has no significance at all in relation to the C.Ex?
Areas that it is undoubtedly significant are:
  • Ecosystem reconstruction
  • Reconstruction of stem-group forms / phylogenetic lineages
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense, provided you can supply good refs for the BS's continuing significance in these areas. --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I think your recent changes have been in the wrong direction. I thought the intro part of the preceding version had a fairly clear structure: Darwin's dilemma; evidence of Precambrian life ignored; the Cloud vs Glaessner debate. Your changes also introduced 2 statements not supported by the sources already cited, i.e. they need new sources:
  • "Because the correlation of Cambrian rocks was poorly constrained in Darwin's era, the impression was one of animals appearing instantaneously, from nowhere." I'm not sure this is necessary, as better correlation would not have helped - although the spread of these animals might have appeared nore gradual, the earliest instances of these moderately complex animals would still appear to have materialised from nowhere.
  • "These appear relatively suddenly and are a major contributor to the illusion of a 'complex life from nowhere' scenario." If that can be sourced, then it's valuable. Chronologically, Tyler & Barghoorn's 1955 paper on the Gunflint chert made the idea of Precambrian life respectable, but did nothing to bridge the gap between their cyanobacteia 2,100 million years ago and the trilobites & echinoderms about 530 million years ago. The Russians did a lot of research on SSFs in the 1960s, but this was not published in English until 1975 - after Whittington's Marella] (1971) and Yohoia (1974) papers, and same year as his Opabinia (1975) paper.
If we get a good source for the SSF's appearing to support the "explosive" view, I suggest we move SSF's to go after the impact of the 1970s papers by Whittington & co. This order better reflects the chronology of thinking in the West and makes the "cladistics counter-revolution"TM more striking.
Meanwhile while looking for the date of Whittington's Yohoia paper I've found a new source and will look to see what can be extracted (The origin of animal body plans). --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
But Darwin doesn't have a dilemma if there is evidence of preC life - so I think that this needs introducing before the dilemma? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It depends on which aspect of the Gunflint bacteria you emphasise. There was life as far back as 2,100 million years ago; but it was a far cry from the moderately complex bilaterians that appear in the fossil record around 530 million years ago. For the purposes of this article I think the 2nd is the more useful. But I don't know what sort of debates were going on about the Ediacara biota in 1970. For example, if in 1970 the Ediacarans were regarded as closely related to Early Cm bilaterians, Darwin's dilemma is mitigated but Whittington & co. sharpened it again (like the rhyme about Newton & Einstein) --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've re-drafted again, following more stricly what I think the chrono order is, as I think that wil make it easiest to understand how it all developed. --Philcha (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Martin, a week ago you commented:

Areas that it is undoubtedly significant are:
  • Ecosystem reconstruction
  • Reconstruction of stem-group forms / phylogenetic lineages

Would you like to expand on that and / or provide refs? --Philcha (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Once we get this section right to our (temporary) satisfaction, I suggest we get on with Burgess Shale - I suspect that once that's fairly well developed we'll want to re-consider what does on what article, so there no point in going for GA with Fossils of the Burgess Shale very quickly. --Philcha (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nuggets from The origin of animal body plans:

  • "most of today's animal phyla originated at least as early as 520 M years ago" (p 65)
  • Glaessner intepreted various Ediacarans as cnidarians, annelids and arthropods in papers 1958, 1959, 1969, 1971, 1978 and 1984 (p 65)
  • Seilacher proposed Vendobionta 1984, 1985, 1989. Pflug had made similar proposals in 1971, but in German. (p 65) --Philcha (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS I now think we have enough to cover about the BS and similar fossils, so no space to go into Ediacarans in any detail. In any case I think it's Gould who makes the biggest deal of them and his Wonderful Life, although published 1989, presented a very 1970s view except where Seilacher's Vendobiota (1984) suited him. --20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Early Cambrian stratigraphy

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Martin and Philcha! I prepare materials about Upper Vendian-Lower Cambrian stratigraphy and SSF for Wikipedia on base of correct and new information from Russia and China. The preliminary result: http://vendian.net76.net/tommotian.htm I think, it will be useful for this discussion. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC))Reply

Hi, Aleksey! I waited for Martin to comment, as he knows more about stratigraphy than I do - on a good day I can spell the word, on a great day I can type it correctly. Martin seems still to be thinking this over, so I'll be very rash and make some comments.
I already knew that Cambrian stratigraphy was a mess, and while looking for some background on the page you mentioned I found palaeos.com's page with its links and the amusing diagram that shows how the dating of the Cambrian has changed sinced 1980, and the same site's satirical comments on this messy issue - plus Geologic time scale 1989 (Harland; pp 31-34), which will be a good ref for the difficulty of the issue and the history of attempts to resolve it - having a date stamp in the book's title says enough. I'm also aware that Russian scientists think the "official" timescale is mistaken, and they have to be taken seriously because some many of the rocks and the researchers on the latest Proterozoic and earliest Cambrian are Russian.
I think this is too big and complex a subject for an article on the Burgess fossils. I suggest we copy this to Talk:Cambrian and continue there, with the intention to update Cambrian and then, when that's settled, summarise in other relevant WP articles. The stratigraphy issues may turn out to need so much explanation that an article is required just about them, e.g "Proterozoic-Cambrian boundary", so that Cambrian has room for other sub-topics like paleoenvironments and paleogeography.
Improving WP's coverage of this is not going to be a quick job, because it's a complex and controversial topic. I suggest that in the meantime articles like this one on the Burgess fossils follow the chronology currently in use - not because it's known to be correct (nothing is, in early Cambrian stratigraphy), but because there's no point in putting a lot of work in to dependent articles before the main one is in good shape. Then when the issues are resolved (as much as they are going to be) we can follow the "what links here" links from Cambrian and update the linked articles, including this one on the Burgess fossils.
BTW did you produce the image comparing Russian and western views yourself? A simplified version of that would be worth several thousand words. --Philcha (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It will certainly be useful for discussion, although I agree with Philcha that this is not the best place for it. I think the next stage would be to assemble a range of published sources to back up your image; perhaps an article on 'Stratigraphy of the Cambrian' is in order, and would be a good place to develop a discussion of the points of view? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have placed it here to show the time of occurrence of some organisms and an abundance of early Cambrian life, before the time Burgess Shale. I have moved the talk about this scheme here Proterozoic-Cambrian boundary. Where and as this information will be published in Wiki, we will decide it afterwards. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC))Reply
I think that formulating an article helps clarify what the issues are so I'm starting on Stratigraphy of the Cambrian. Feel free to edit the page or its talk page as it takes shape. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comparison w/ earlier/later faunas

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a bit stumped as per what could go in here. AFAIK there hasn't been any detailed comparison of the BS to SP or CJ, and I don't think there is anything general which can be informatively stated. Of course, the different taphonomic setting renders comparisons to non-BS-type assemblages meaningless. What were you planning for the section, and is it necessary? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The first aspect I thought of was with Chengjiang and Sirius Passet, ecological niches, mix of taxa, etc. My impression (possibly quite wrong) is that BS and Chengjiang are relatively similar despite the gap in time, while Chengjiang and Sirius Passet are more dissimilar despite being fairly close in time.
Then there's scope for comparing the BS fauna with the "typical Paleozoic fauna" after the Ordovician radiation, and possibly with lateish Edicaran faunas.
I was hoping you'd take the lead in this, even if only to point out why it's a bad idea. Otherwise I'l have to start searching to see if there really anything to write about. --Philcha (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The SP has a significantly different taphonomy, which means that different things are likely to be preserved. And remember that the error bars on the dates of the individual beds are pretty much in the 10s of millions of years. SP has a rather limited number of taxa which, AFAIK, precludes any meaningful statistical analysis. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
You did take "the lead in this, even if only to point out why it's a bad idea" :-/
Anything else we need to cover? --Philcha (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nothing springs to mind. I think we're looking pretty complete. I'll endeavour to read through and copy edit everything in my tea-breaks; then we might be ready to invite people to peer review the article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I thought we'd covered the ground. I think we still need to sort out "Theoretical importance". After that, and before copy-editing or peer review, we should perhaps draft out a structure for Burgess Shale. My guess is still that there's enough to justify separate articles about the formation and the fauna, but I'm less sure than I was a month ago. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
There's a lot more about the shale in this article than I had envisioned being here at first, but I think there is still scope for its own article, which will go into much more detail about the geology, extent, discovery and so forth - these topics only need introducing in this article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

To do

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Needed to make this comlpete enough for GA:

  • Something on the other Early-Mid Cambrian soft-bodied faunas - not as detailed as I proposed above, more a condensed version of the summaries at this old version of [[Cambrian explosion. We should also note others of similar age, e.g. in Utah (Wheeler Shale) and Australia. I suggest this should come after the "critters" section.--Philcha (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Geography. Ideally we should cover both current and paleo- geography. For the paleo-geography, we'd need to check how by much reconstructions differ. The biggest problem is getting hold of maps that are suitable and has no copyright problems. --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

New Nature article

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Collins D. (2009). "Misadventures in the Burgess Shale". Nature 460(7258): 952–53. Haven't seen the paper yet, but noticed it wasn't mentioned in the article. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Sasata! That section was written before "Misadventures in the Burgess Shale" was published. I've used it to improve the "history of discovery" section. If you have time, tell me what you think of the new version. --Philcha (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the article is very interesting, the more so because I live only a province away! If no-one beats me to it, I will pick up the GAR in a week or so (when my plate is not so full) and give you a very detailed opinion. Sasata (talk)
Only a province away! Curiously, my collaborator User:Smith609 is doing a PhD under Caron at the Royal Ontario Museum, which has overtaken the Smithsonian as the largest Burgess Shale collection. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago60 comments3 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fossils of the Burgess Shale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will undertake this review. The article is neutral, stable and generally well written. The scholarship is of a very high standard. The large range of images appears to be in order; Kudos to the several creators of original work, including nominator Philcha, for their commitment to creating and providing such good illustration of an article.

Specific points

edit
  • First sentence of the lead has too many clauses and should not begin "These fossils". I have attempted an improvement.
  • Lead text has some idiosyncratic writing "rather thin", "fairly tough", "largely regarded". These expressions lack precision. Choose more concise language, and deal with the nature of qualifiers in the body text. For example, say simply "thin" in the lead, then explain how thin - or how their thickness compares with others - in the body text.
  • the fossils "were stored on high shelving in back rooms". It isn't entirely clear where. Although Walcott was with the Smithsonian, it hasn't been made clear that he was undertaking the work for the Smithsonian and that this was/is therefore where his collection of fossils was/is kept (and in any case, a lay person won't know where that would be - a city in the US? Which one?)
  • "Between 1962 and the mid-1970s Alberto Simonetta re-examined some of Walcott's collection and suggested some new interpretations". We haven't been told what the original interpretations were, nor is the nature of these re-interpretations outlined. A few extra sentences are I think in order in this section, including a para that sets out in simple terms Walcott's (and his colleagues') initial interpretations. This would set the scene more effectively.
  • There is an issue - at least in my browser - with the appearance of the key to image "File:Crown n Stem Groups 01.png", whereby the text "crown group" is partly obscured by "stem group". This may need tweaking.

More anon. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • I provided some more context for lay readers regarding recent finds - I hope my wording doesn't make experts wince.

More anon. Sorry for the slow and fragmentary progress. hamiltonstone (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • At the end of the geology section is this phrase: "during which the environment was essentially stable". The preceding sentences have created a picture of a physical environment that was anything but stable (mudslides etc that "abruptly washed large volumes of mud off the platform"). Is the intention to say the climate was essentially stable?
  • A tedious suggestion for which I apologise: some refs have retrieval dates, some don't, and not all are in the same date format. Improved consistency would be good.The refs are otherwise of an exceptionally high standard.

More anon. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Thanks for fixing the "too many clauses " - and for making me notice that I omitted the initial discovery in 1886, which I've added! --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Re thickness of fossil layers, we already have the total thickness. If I added the avg thickness of individual layers the result would be "The fossil beds are in a series of shale layers, averaging 30 millimetres (1.2 in) and totalling about 160 metres (520 ft) in thickness, that built up beside the face of a high undersea limestone cliff." What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Discovery, collection, and re-examinations

edit
  • Added (on high shelving in back rooms) "at the Smithsonian Institution" --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Walcott's and Simonetta's interpretations are quite different from and superseded by interpretations starting by Whittington & co's work in the 1970s.
    • Walcott, like his contemporaries, assumed the fossils represented members of known modern taxa - the article notes that his contemporaries accepted Walcott's analyses. But work from Whittington onwards made it clear that these are not known modern taxa - their initial conclusions pointed towards to whole major that were previously unknown, including unfamiliar phyla. Then Briggs and Whittington starting using the cladistic approach, which led to seeing these fossils as evolutionary "aunts and cousins" of modern taxa. --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Simonetta's interpretations did not challenge Walcott's approach but added many details in reconstructions. Gould described these as "aethestecially lovely but fanciful" (Wonderful Life p.129), and Whittington commented, "the evidence for them was not brought out clearly" (paleo-diplo-speak for the same opinion Gould expressed forthrightly). The article's mention of Simonetta is intended to show how little interest there was in the Burgess fossils from the early 1930s to the start for Whittington's work. --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think I see what you are trying to do here. What seems needed is a discussion of the interpretation of the fossils, which should begin with Walcott's now superceded analysis. This could be achieved in at least a couple of different ways:

  • by modifying ""Discovery, collection, and re-examinations" to include a historical summary of interpretations - something very much like the two points you made above; or
  • Shorten "Discovery, collection, and re-examinations" to just outline the discovery and collection of fossils, then move on to the geology, and deal with all interpretations, both early and contemporary, in "Theoretical significance", perhaps re-badging the section "Interpretation and theoretical significance". hamiltonstone (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Specific fossils are discussed in Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Notable_Burgess_Shale_fossils, including Anomalocaris (an amusing detective story), Opabinia (classified in the 1970s as part of a novel phylum, more recently as a fairly close relative of arthropods) and an outline of the messy halwaxiid debate including Wiwaxia, Orthrozanclus and Odontogriphus. The debate about the "halwaxiids" have been going since 1990, and can only be outlined here - must get back to try to make more sense of Halwaxiida some time.
BTW your edit about "a small sea creature Orthrozanclus, possibly a mollusc or a polychaete worm" goes a little further than Conway Morris & Caron (2007) say. They present 2 possibilities about the halwaxiids, including Orthrozanclus: (a) they are "cousins" of molluscs and slightly more distantly related to annelids and brachiopods; (b) conversely, halwaxiids may be "cousins" of annelids and brachiopods and slightly more distantly related to molluscs - but SCM & JBC do not suggest that any halwaxiid is specifically closer to annelids than to brachiopods. The "Notable Burgess Shale fossils" section is circumspect about this, saying "Orthrozanclus was also drawn into the complex debate about whether Wiwaxia is more closely related to molluscs or to polychaete worms".
My last version of "Discovery, collection, and re-examinations" uses Sanctacaris, Othrozanclus, etc. to illustrate that discoveries are still being be made in the Burgess. I'm not at all convinced that going into more detail about Walcott's, Simonetta's and other pre-1970s interpretations in this article would help readers:
  • This article gives a brief overview of some fossils, usually those that have aroused debate. There are a lot more, but list them would make this article rather long (and it's already not small).
  • For fossils interpreted by Walcott, the articles on individual fossils are a better place to mention Walcott's interpretations, e.g. at Opabinia or Hurdia (which did not make the cut for this article). --Philcha (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think i made my intention clear. You are quite right that the interpretation of individual fossils would be better treated elsewhere. But in an article on "fossils of the Burgess Shale", some text about how the original discoverer / collector interpreted them in general is very much in order. (BTW, when one considers the significance of the Burgess, isn't it amazing that "As of 2008 only two in-depth studies of the mix of fossils in any part of the Burgess Shale had been published"?! Not querying it, just found it very surprising :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Back to the critters you commented on in section "Discovery, collection, and re-examinations", how about "led to the description in the 1980s of Sanctacaris, an arthropod, and of Orthrozanclus in 2007, which became part of the debate about the relationships of the halwaxiids to modern lophotrochozoan invertebrates" (with additional refs, mainly those used later in section Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Notable_Burgess_Shale_fossils). --Philcha (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The issue for me here is accessability to the lay reader. I'm not relly fussed what the descriptions are (for example, I just took "possibly a mollusc or a polychaete worm" from the linked WP article). I'm happy for it to be corrected I just wanted some plain-ish English words to tell the reader what these discoveries were in general terms. Turning to your last proposal, it is an improvement but "...the relationships of the halwaxiids to modern lophotrochozoan..." gets us back to the same challenge. Why not just "...the [evolutionary/similar word] relationships between the many different mid-Cambrian period life forms..." or similar. hamiltonstone (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that the halwaxiid issue is complex. As I said, mollusc vs polychaete is inaccurate. "relationships between the many different mid-Cambrian period life forms" is inaccurate the other way - the issue does not involve the majority of Burgess taxa, e.g. excludes arthropods and their "cousins", priapulids, chordates (if the candidates actually were chordates), sponges, echinoderms, etc. "Lophotrochozoan" is accurate. How about "... debate about the relationships of the halwaxiids to modern lophotrochozoa (the super-phylum that includes molluscs, annelids, brachiopods and a few other phyla)" --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • That's a step forward, but "halwaxiids" is just as much the problem, so it too needs explanation, and things may get cumbersome. I know you're going to hate this, but what about ""relationships between some of the many different mid-Cambrian period life forms found in sections of the Burgess Shale" ;-) ? hamiltonstone (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
"relationships between some of the many different mid-Cambrian period life forms" could include all the taxa listed in my last comment, most of which have nothing to do with the debate in question. "lophotrochozoa" is a complex concept, mainly based on molecular phylogeny analyses (comparisons of DNA) on modern animals (molluscs, annelids, brachiopods, phoronids, etc.), and I see no prospect of shrink-wrapping this to the brevity required in an overview like Fossils of the Burgess Shale. "halwaxiids" is not quite complex but still probably too much to shrink-wrap. "relationships between some of the many different mid-Cambrian period life forms" also gives no wikilinks thaat hardy readers could use to find out more about these critters.
How about "... and of Orthrozanclus in 2007, which has strong resemblances to both Wiwaxia and Halkieria, and became part of the debate about whether these animals were more closely related to molluscs or to annelids."(with additional refs, mainly those used later in section Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Notable_Burgess_Shale_fossils)
Except that's a bit of mouthful, and the same sentence starts with Sanctacaris. Possible alternative: "The continuing search for Burgess Shale fossils since the mid-1970s has led to the description of an arthropod Sanctacaris in the 1980s[11] and in 2007 of Orthrozanclus, which looked like a slug with a small shell at the front, chain mail over the back and long spines round the edges.[ref]" That gives a mental picture and a hint of the weirdies to come, and the evolutionary complexities are covered in Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Notable_Burgess_Shale_fossils. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, let's give that a shot, and see how it looks when we're done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done. --Philcha (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

How the fossils were preserved

edit
  • I'm a little confused by the thread of argument across the first two paras of this section. Half way through para 1 it appears we are being introduced to Caron and Johnson's thesis that burial is more or less in situ. The remaining text of para 1 presents some of the evidence, including: "Other evidence for burial where the animals had lived includes the presence of tubes and burrows". Para 2 does not begin with a lead sentence in the normal manner - a sentence that tells us what the para is going to be about. It reads as though a fairly arbitrary break has been inserted from the previous para. However, the first sentence includes the fact that "no burrows under the sea-floor have so far been found in the Burgess Shale". This appears to contradict the Caron and Johnson evidence just above. Is this second para presenting a contradictory thesis to C&J's? Not obviously: shortly afterward, we are told of a fact "...which suggests they were not transported far if at all". Can you have a shot at re-organising this a little, perhaps including some more signposting of argument / counterargument? Para 1 begins doing this very well - the problem is para 2 I think.
Unfortunately academics writing for other academics often omit the "signposting of argument / counterargument", expecting their readers pick up without effort what they regard as very simple logic. The logic is: (a) It was the corpses were deposited in anoxic conditions, otherwise bacteria would have the remains before they could fossilise; (b) Since the animal can't have lived in anoxic conditions, they must have been transported before burial; (c) Caron & Jackson undermined this implication by showing that at least some animals lived where they were then buried (denying the consequent); (d) therefore (next para) they need to find conditions where the non-transported animals could have lived (i.e. oxic) but could have been fossilised (possibly buried in adjacent anoxic conditions) - and one solution is oxic water above the seabed but anoxic water permeating the sediment in which the remains were buried and fossilised.
While I don't think I can signpost quite so explicitly without running into WP:V, I think I can make it clearer by rearranging a bit. Try this:

The processes responsible for the exceptional preservational quality of the Burgess Shale fossils are far from clear. The interpretation of what is preserved depends partly on two issues that are interlinked: whether the animals were buried where they lived, or washed long distances by sediment flows; and whether the water at the burial sites was anoxic or provided enough oxygen to sustain animals. The traditional view is that soft bodies and organs could only be preserved in anoxic conditions, otherwise oxygen-breathing bacteria would have made decomposition too rapid for fossilization. This would imply that the sea-floor animals could not have lived there.

However, in 2006 Caron and Jackson concluded that some of the sea-floor animals were buried where they lived. Many fossils represented partially-decayed soft-bodied animals such as polychaetes, which had already died shortly before the burial event, and would have been fragmented if they had been transported any significant distance by a storm of swirling sediment. Other evidence for burial where the animals had lived includes the presence of tubes and burrows, and of assemblies of animals preserved while they fed – such as a group of carnivorous priapulids clustered round a freshly-moulted arthropod whose new cuticle would not yet have hardened. Fossilized swimming organisms were also buried immediately below where they lived.[1] Some fossils, such as Marella, are almost always the right way up, which suggests they were not transported far if at all. Others, such as Wiwaxia, are often at odd angles, and some fossils of animals with shelly or toughened components very rarely contain remains of soft tissues. This suggests that genera were transported by different distances, although most were buried where they had lived.[1]

 
The typical wrinkled "elephant skin" texture of microbial mats

Fossil tracks are rare and no burrows under the sea-floor have so far been found in the Burgess Shale. These absences have been used to support the idea that the water near the sea-floor was anoxic. However it is possible that the water just above the sea-floor was oxygenated while the water in the sediment below it was anoxic, and also possible that there simply were no deep-burrowing animals in the Burgess Shale.[1] Fossils known as Girvanella and Morania may represent members of microbial mat communities. Morania appears on about a third of the slabs Caron and Jackson studied, and in some cases presents the wrinkled "elephant skin" texture typical of fossilized microbial mats. If such mats were present, they may have provided food for grazing animals and possibly helped to preserve soft bodies and organs, by creating oxygen-free zones under the mats and thus inhibiting the bacteria that cause decomposition.[1]

Is that an improvement? --Philcha (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, but it has two issues, one old and one new. The issue that is still a problem is the apparent contradiction about burrows: "Other evidence for burial where the animals had lived includes the presence of tubes and burrows..." yet "Fossil tracks are rare and no burrows under the sea-floor have so far been found". These cannot both be correct. The new issue is that the para that begins "Fossil tracks are rare..." Needs an introductory sentence telling the reader what the subject of this paragraph is.
The anoxic/oxic and indigenous/transported issues are like simultaneous equations in high school algebra. You can solve either on its own, you need to produce a partial solution to one, feed that into the 2nd, then use the solution to the 2nd to finish the solution of the 1st.
Coming back to the issues you raised:
  • "tubes" generally refers to habitations standing above the surface, as in modern Tube worms and pre-Burgess Cloudina. "burrows" can include horizontal just under the surface, as well as deeper burrows. To put it in perspective, Trace fossils and substrates of the terminal Proterozoic–Cambrian transition: Implications for the record of early bilaterians and sediment mixing (2002) says some Early Cm burrows at other sites are 1-2cm, while The Trace Fossil Record of the Burgess Shale (Mangano & Caron, conference presentation Aug 2009; will become a publish paper in time) says most Burgess burrows are less than 3mm deep. I would not like to cite the conference presentation until it becomes a paper, but Caron & Jackson (2006) on Burgess taphonomy (how things were fossilised), which is cited, also notes the absence of deeper burrows below the surface of the seafloor. How about "... includes the presence of tubes and shallow burrows ..." and "and so far no burrows deeper under the sea-floor have been found"? --Philcha (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The first para deals with the indigenous/transported "equation". The 2nd para, "Fossil tracks are rare..." is about the 2nd "equation", anoxic/oxic. Mangano & Caron (conference, Aug 2009) regards the shallowness of Burgess burrows as evidence that the water was oxic down to the surface of the seabed but changed sharply to anoxic below the surface. That would reconcile the evidence of local animals with the fact that anoxic conditions preserve buried remains. Although I would not want to cite that, Caron & Jackson (2006) on Burgess taphonomy suggest oxic water above the seafloor and anoxic below. As an introductory sentence how about "The presence of animals at the sites just before burial events suggest that the water there was oxygenated. However, fossil tracks are rare ...". --Philcha (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the "How the fossils were preserved" section may be back to front. I suggest it should begin with what is the second last para (ie. starting "Burgess shale type preservation is defined as..."), then have paras 1, 2, 3, 4, while the current last para stays as the last para. This revised order would mean that we are first introduced to the nature of the preservation before moving to the more complex discussion of how this came to happen.
    I think it would be a mistake to separate the significant features of Burgess-type preservation (fairly hard parts as films, very soft parts in 3-D, rest lost) from the periods in which Burgess-type preservation occurred. At present I prefer the setting (anoxic or not, local or transported) before the details of preservation, as I think that flows better from the geological setting in the prev section. I suggest we re-visit this after looking at how to handle anoxic or not, local or transported. --Philcha (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • In other respects, this section is good.
Hi, Martin, welcome back. I guess you mean "No vertical trace fossils in BS". Re Mangano & Caron, I'd prefer to wait until they actually publish, as there may be changes compared with the conference proceedings. However it looks like they're highlighting a significant point, e.g. Trace fossils and substrates of the terminal Proterozoic–Cambrian transition: Implications for the record of early bilaterians and sediment mixing (2002) says some Early Cm burrows at other sites are 5-10 times as deep ("1-2 cm") as those Mangano & Caron found. --Philcha (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Faunal composition

edit
  • "...more recent than the Phyllopod Bed (abbreviated "GPB")" Should this be Greater Phyllopod Bed?
Thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • "Conway Morris found that the shelly fossils in Walcott's Phyllopod Bed were about as abundant as in other shelly fossil deposits, but accounted for only 14% of the Phyllopod Bed fossils." This confused me. First, I thought that, in order for us to follow the subsequent arithmetic, we first need to know what the typical abundance is. But then I saw a different problem. The article uses four different descriptors for particular layers, and in this section it appears absolutely crucial to use exactly the right one at each point. The four are:
    • Walcott's Phyllopod Bed
    • Phyllopod Bed
    • Greater Phyllopod Bed
    • GPB.

In the preceding quote, it is not clear what "Phyllopod Bed" is. At least, I think that is why I'm confused :-)

"Phyllopod Bed" = Walcott's, about 2m high. "Greater Phyllopod Bed" aka "GPB" is a 70-metre set of layers of which Walcott's "Phyllopod Bed" forms the top 2m. After introducing "GPB" I (hopefully) always "GBP" for the big series and "Phyllopod Bed" for the smaller one. The survey of fauna by Conway Morris in 1986 covered the "Phyllopod Bed", while Caron & Jackson (2008) covered the GBP, but included some analysis of the "Phyllopod Bed" for comparison with Conway Morris (1986). Ain't geology and paleontology fun! --Philcha (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The line of argument here probably needs another bit of clarification. It talks about "shelly fossils". I presume therefore there are other sorts of fossils. That is, there are non-shelly creatures that are capable of fossilisation. However, the para appears to use a multiplier to estimate levels of biodiversity, and implies this is done by treating shelly fossils in contrast to creatures that "are unsuitable for fossilization". Hmm. I don't know if I'm going to be able to explain myself here. Might have to try again tomorrow.
Aaargh! Another case where the academics take it for granted, so sources for such "elementary logic" are scarce. "shelly fossils" = biomineralized, i.e. reinforced with minerals as in e.g. bivalves and many gastropods. These are the items most likely to be preserved in marine environments (in terrestrial environments, large skeletons of vertebrates are the dominant animal fossils). Non-mineralised fossils are usuually found in exceptionally favourable conditions.
Conway Morris (1986) found the same abundance of mineralised fossils in the Phyllopod Bed (exceptionally favourable conditions for nonmineralised fossils) as in other deposits. However in non-exceptional deposits only mineralised fossils survived. OTOH in exceptionally favourable beds such as the Phyllopod (and GBP, but CM did not cover this) nonmineralised account for 86% of fossil animals. He therefore reasoned that other non-exceptional deposits originally had the same abundance of non-mineralized animals as in the exceptionally favourable ones - but have not been found there becuase conditions there was poor for fossilising non-mineralized animals. I think a prettified version of CM's reasoning could just about squeeze past WP:V. However the preceding background about "shelly fossils" being much more easily fossilised than nonmineralised ones woudl have to endure 2 ordeals, by WP:V and WP:SYN. --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The rest of "faunal composition" is good.

More anon. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Notable Burgess Shale fossils

edit
  • "...resulting in a frank exchange of views". Either outline the frank exchange, or omit the remark.
The details are not important to go into here. What's more interesting is that it was remarkably heated by the standards of scientific journals. It's a midly example example that scientists are human too - and readers need a laugh after the heavy stuff in the first half of the article. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The last ref (Caron, Scheltema & co, 2007) quotes "Many of Butterfield’s misconceptions might well have been avoided had he taken the opportunity to examine all the new material that formed the basis of our study ...". A passage from their para is blunter but longer: "Unfortunately, most of Butterfield’s contentions are founded on questionable assessments of the fossil material and on assumptions about preservational biases. While his bold statements may sound reasonable to an audience unfamiliar with the taphonomic complexities of the Burgess Shale, Butterfield fails to present any credible new evidence to support them. Regrettably, his arguments serve only to obscure discussions on the correct phylogenetic placement of these organisms." This is undiplomatic by scientific standards, but not great comic dialogue. IMO "a frank exchange of views" is more fun as it leaves more to readers' imagination. --Philcha (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (typo fixed --Philcha (talk))Reply
  • "Three jawless fish have been found among the Chengjiang fossils, which are about 17 million years older than the Burgess Shale" This sentence appears as a non-sequitur at the end of the last description. I assume the implicit point is that the date for these fish supports the possibility that these other fossils can be chordates, but this needs to be spelled out.
May be I'm getting too close to the subject, but "fish" implies craniate, which implies chordate. The history of the subject is that Pikaia was a big deal after being diagnosed as a chordate in the mid-1970s, but has been up-staged by the jawless fish from Chengjiang, where the fossils beds are about 17M years earlier. I could expand it to e.g. "While Pikaia was celebrated in the mid-1970s as the earliest known chordate,[ref a page from Wonderful Life], three jawless fish have been found among the Chengjiang fossils, which are about 17 million years older than the Burgess Shale[existing ref Conway Morris 2008)]--Philcha (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fish implies chordate, and that itself may need spelling out (we're both perhaps too close to the subject in that regard), but the thing that is implicit and really needs spelling out is the point about the time frame etc. Your proposal is an improvement. Put it in, and i'll have a read-through at the end and see if it solves the problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The rest of the section is good.

More anon - hopefully not as anon as last time :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Theoretical significance

edit
  • This section barely mentions the Burgess Shale fossils. It gives multiple paragraphs of background before we get there, and when we do get there, it doesn't seem to be about the Burgess fossils to great degree. Of all the sections, this one needs the most work. It absolutely must begin with some sort of statement about why the Burgess Shale fossils have theoretical signficance, and the 'depth' of the background probably can be reduced. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're right on both points - it should start with a pointer to the significance of the BS, and the history can be slimmed down. OTOH I think the theory stuff (cladistics, stem groups) is needed, in order to explain the about-turn in the interpretation of the BS fossils. I'll prepare a draft in my sandbox, and post link when done. --Philcha (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
New draft at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale_-_Theoretical#New_draft_1. I've slimmed the history and add a few "pointer" sentences, but I think the basic structure should remain the same. After Darwin presented the dilemma, things went relatively quiet for about 80 years - but from the 1940s onwards new evidence and ideas became a trickle and then a flood. This was already going on before Whittington & co's re-analyses in the 1970s, but they provided a quantity and depth of detail with which other fossil beds could not compare.
  • Darwin stated the options - the "explosive" view and the "long Proterozoic history that was hidden by the lack of fossils".
  • The orthodox scepticism about Precambrian life from the 1860s to almost the early 1960s largely stifled debate for a long time.
  • The debate from the 1940s onwards was ignited by new discoveries. In the 1970s the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium titled the balance towards the "explosive" view.
  • Whittington & co's discoveries entered this existing debate, and initially they were influenced by the "explosive" view.
  • Meanwhile cladistics was developing for its own reasons (Willi Hennig was an expert on diptera). This is not explained in typical zoology or paleontology textbooks, so the article has to provide explanation.
  • Whittington & co (esp. Briggs & Whittington) became dissatisfied with the chaotic picture of lots of unknown and short-lived phyla, and tried out cladistics.
  • Later discoveries show BS-style critters widespread and going back at least 15M years earlier. Other discoveries extend the early evoluiton of animal into the Ediacaran.
  • The version in your sandbox is an improvement, and should go into the article. I still feel that we're straying a fair way from "Fossils of the Burgess Shale", toward what one would expect in Cambrian explosion, when it comes to the scope of the text. I wouldn't hold it up at GA, but to my mind it stretches the definition of "focussed" in terms of article criteria. :-)
I understand your concern but the Burgess Shale fossils, while very important, was just one of the contributors to the current view of the early evelution of animals. Without the puzzle of the Cambrian explosion, the BS fossil would be just "Wow, that's weird." Without the swing from the Linnean to the cladistics approach to classification, the BS examples would be just a freak show. --Philcha (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Have you suggestions on how to make it clear that the BS fossils were a piece of a jigsaw, although a big piece? --Philcha (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Possibly. First, I have a question: did analysis of the Burgess Shale fossils affect the development / acceptability of cladistics, or was cladistics simply applied to the Burgess Shale to achieve new analytical understandings? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The German entomologist Willi Hennig laid the foundations of cladistics in the 1950s, see Brysse or for convenience Cladistics#History_of_cladistics. Brysse says Hennig's work was first translated into English in the late 1960s, and that Briggs and Whittington gave cladistics a try out in the very early 1980s to see if it could make some sense of the BS critters. --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Not sure whether that was an answer :-) My thinking was this: if cladistic analysis of the BS helped to develop the theory of cladistics / entrench it as a new method of paleontol. analysis / provide evidence in support of the utility of cladistics, then I can see a way tie this section into the subject (of the BS fossils) more closely. But if cladistics was simply used to analyse the BS without any of the above effects, then this material may not belong in a section on the Theoretical significance of the BS at all. A section on "theoretical significance of" a subject should be about the effect(s) of that subject (in this case, the subject is the fossils of the BS) on theory, not about the application of theory(ies) to the subject. But I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to know which it is in this case - hence my question. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) I think I'm still looking for a clarification from you on this point: are you saying that the significance of cladistics in this context is that Briggs and Whittington were able to use it to interpret the BS fossils in a new way - and that is the only relationship between BS and cladistics? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your last comment is an accurate summary - cladistics clarified the BS fossils, not the other way round. The impact on interpretation of the BS fossils was immense - from viewing the "weird" forms as a proliferation of short-lived but distinct phyla to "aunts and cousins" of modern forms. Your next question may be "why explain cladistics here?" Some undergraduate textbooks have not yet included cladistics, so non-specialists need a shrink-wrapped summary - especially as the Cladistics article needs improvements and may be re-structured into a package of articles.
BTW I have not yet pasted in from User:Philcha/Sandbox/Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale_-_Theoretical#New_draft_1, as I thought there would be more discussion. Please try out a "New draft 2" at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale_-_Theoretical if you want to experiment - I remember a previous GA review where the sandbox approach helps us to clarify a complex subject. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
(undent)From talk:

Yeah, i'm still here. sorry about that. i've been scratching my head about this final section but have also mainly just been busy w real life. So. I have now undertaken a revision at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Fossils of the Burgess Shale - Theoretical. This is the version that I think should replace the current "Theoretical significance" section, and you wil see I have split it into two separate sections. This is in part because all material about cladistics did not belong under the heading "theoretical signifiance" (hence my questioning at the GA talk page).

My new version lacks a crucial final sentence that I am not well-enough informed to write (Too long since I did my geology degree, alas). It should say something like "The interpretation of the Burgess Shale fossils thus contributed to the debate about punctuated equilibrium / explosion / continuity of evolution by [fill in the blank here in plain English]." The problem is that at present, there is a brief reference to the interpretation by Whittington et al "as evidence that all the living bilaterian phyla had appeared in the Early Cambrian", but you need to join these dots for the lay reader to how this means the BS fossils were positioned as evidence on which 'side' of the debate. Once that is done, these sections are ready to go across. Even without that sentence, I think my version of your revision is an improvement of the current approach in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

it really is one big debate that pulls in bits from different areas, as at my new previous draft. Maybe I'm not using the right signposts, perhaps because I've been working on this subject area since autumn 2007, and may take for granted the connections and the complexity. Let's see if breaking it down helps, then we can see when we need more signposts:
  • The issue starts with Darwin's dilemma that his theory of evolution assumes a long, gradual development of life, including animals - but the fossils he recognised started in the Cambrian. Buckland note the phenomenon earlier, but did not have a theory of evolution,
  • Most paleontogists from the mid-19th centuries to the 1960s were not just sceptic, they dogmatically assumed there was no Precambrian life (Walcott was an honourable exception). The discoveries of Sprigg and other discoveries in the Ediacaran from 1948 onwards and of Tyler & Baghoorn's discoveries of fossil cyanobacteria about 2,300 to 1,900 million years ago starting breakdown this resistance. But knowledge of Precambrian life had a long of catching up to do, and contributed little to 1970s debates.
  • So the debate between an "explosion" (Cloud) and "a long history hidden by lack of earlier fossils" (Durham & Glaessner) was very little advanced than in Darwin's time. The punctuated equilibrium suggested that evolution was jerky.
  • Whittington's & co. find a lot of fossils that appear not to be members of know phyla (at this point they knew only Linnean taxonomy). It seems that all these phyla appear abruptly (and unusual lower taxa, e.g. Marella), and that are short-lived. As result it seems that the Early Cambrian was extraordinary in both speed and variety.
  • Meanwhile from left field the theory of cladistics have been developing. Short digression of the main relevant ideas of cladistics, since IMO many readers will not understand the principles (or have misconceptions).
  • Whittington's & co. are dissatified with the apparent confusion in the Cambrian, and try out cladistics, which was "new" in UK at the time.
  • Influenced by cladistics, the new and still currently dominant view that many of the "weirdies" are "aunts and cousins" of forms that survived to to-day.
  • Fossils that are wide-spread and similar to those of the BS but about 17 MY before BS indicate that the real action was over 20 MY before the BS (frustratingly, we have so far no really good fossil beds during went the action must have been). However we now have some fossils even earlier that, in the Ediacaran (e.g. Kimberella) which suggest that some groups developed fairly gradually at various times, rather than in a Big Bang.
Does this help you to suggest how signposts could be placed. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

response

edit

I have been reading these points and the attempted revisions (both yours and mine) over the last week and still have problems. Can you do two things please:

  • First, rewrite this sentence from just above—"Influenced by cladistics, the new and still currently dominant view that many of the "weirdies" are "aunts and cousins" of forms that survived to to-day"—so that it is grammatical. It is the most important of your dot points I think, but I wasn't sure what was intended.
    The 1970s view (still used in Gould's Wonder Life, 1989) was that phyla and other higher-level taxa appeared very quickly in the Early Cambrian, and that many of these were very short-lived (geologically). Cladistics emphasises similiarities rather than differences, so that the odd-looking Early Cambrian forms became "aunts and cousins" of extant ones, rather than unexplained "weirdies". --Philcha (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Second, yes i think you may be too close to the detail of this material. Humour me with an attempt to explain in one or two sentences for a lay reader the theoretical significance of the BS fossils - that is, the significance of these fossils (and not the others more recently found) to theory(ies) in paleontology / evolution / systematics. I am not looking for the historical account of how the debate evolved (which you have provided and will be useful) but why the Burgess Shale fossils matter for theory. At this stage i am still not clear about why this stuff should be in this article, even though i am perfectly willing to believe that it does. Don't misunderstand my intention—I am not going to sugest those one or two sentences should become the only text to be under the heading. But I still need to get a handle on the key point you are trying to get across to the lay reader here. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
    I think the reasoning is a 3-step process rather than 2. Stage 1 was a paradigm shift in which Linnean classification was replaced by cladistics. The new paradigm (1) combined with the new BS fossil discoveries (2) produced a new interpretation of the BS fossils (3), as "aunts and cousins" rather than "weird wonders". Of course the chronological sequence was different: Linnean classification; Walcott's fossils and his interpretations; Whittington & co's re-analysis of these animals anatomy, in much greater detail, from early 1970s onward; the view of a profusion of "weird wonders"; the cladistics paradigm (introduced in late 1970s in UK; used by Whittington & co from 1980s onwards); the "aunts and cousins" view of BS fossils becomes and still is dominant.
    From the point of view of the (bemused) lay reader - Whittington & co from the 1970s onwards produced much more detailed investigations of the anatomy of many BS fossils. At the time paleontologists used the traditional Linnean classification, which emphasised differences in types of organisms. This approach made many of the BS animals look nothing like later animals, and many of the BS animals looked very short-lived. Cladistics was developed in the 1950s onwards and initially for analysing relationships between insects. In the late 1970s English-speaking paleontologists saw cladistics as a possible way of making relationships between BS animals clearer. Increasingly detailed analysis from the early 1980s onwards developed a view of the stranger BS fossils as "aunts and cousins", and this is now the dominant view. --Philcha (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, these are my picks as the sources most likely to quickly and directly support a section on theoretical signif:
  • Collins, D. (August 2009). Misadventures in the Burgess Shale. Nature 460: 952–953
  • Brysse, K. (2008). "From weird wonders to stem lineages: the second reclassification of the Burgess Shale fauna". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39 (3): 298–313
  • Conway Morris, S. 1998. The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Simonetta, A. M. and E. Insom. 1993. New animals from the Burgess Shale (Middle Cambrian) and their possible significance for the understanding of the Bilateria. Bolletino di Zoologia, 60:97-107
I am particularly puzzled by the omission of Conway Morris's 1998 book, which would seem the most likely source of an accessible summary of matters relating to significance (though I concede i say this not having access to the book). I'll try and get a look at Collins to see what I think of its use in this context. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Brysse (2008) is central on the paradigm shift. Budd (1996; doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1996.tb01831.x) makes good sense of the arthropods and near-arthropods that are the clearer of the 2 most discussed fossil groups of the BS (Wiwaxia and other halwaxiids are still contentious, as the citations at Halwaxiid show, some also cited at Fossils of the Burgess Shale). Collins, D. (August 2009) is history of exploration / collecting rather than theory. I'd be careful of Conway Morris (1998) as I've seen criticism this book was not as objective as it could be, especially in its comments about Gould's Wonderlife; and it's a pop science book, so interspersed with personalities and pretty things that get in the way of the analysis. Simonetta and Insom (1993): looks as fanciful as Simonetta's 1960's articles; proposes that Metaspriggina was an early chordate and also like some Ediacaran "vendobionta" such as Spriggina, which had a sort of set-off symmetry. --Philcha (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's fine on Brysse and Simonetta. But the Conway Morris book appears to me to be the most important work of its type. Unless you have reliable sources criticising it, i think it has to be used. Besides, it does not have to stand alone - Gould's account of things can be included too. While Conway Morris may be "pop science", the WP article would really benefit from using such a reliable source that talks explicitly about the theoretical significance of the BS (rather than about the BS per se, which is not the same thing). I'm still cogitating about this final section, but haven't had periods of uninterrupted time to apply to the question. If I can't get it sorted by the end of the weekend, i'll ask for a 2nd opinion at GAN and defer to that. To repeat though: my concerns are confined to the theoretical signif section - everything else is good. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi, many thanks for the effort and patience you've shown on this. I could ask User:Smith609 to have look, if he's free - he's a paleo PhD student specialising in the BS and similar critters; while we get on really well, his priority is the science. Otherwise I could have a look for other good paleo editors. However, I'll leave the choice to you as have too many reviewers on the case might be confusing.
How ever this turns out, I'll keep looking on ways to clarify this - you have a head start compared with the typical non-specialist reader, and your concerns imply that improvement is needed. If I leave it alone for a couple months and then look again, that might blow away a mental block or two.
Wonder Life and The Crucible of Creation both have weaknesses, and I'd be uncomfortable about using them in the theoretical part of this article. Gould was a Marxist, he loathed anything that sounded like Social Darwinism, and as part of this he disliked any suggestion that survival of an evolutionary lineage was any way "on merit", which is why Wonder Life makes so much of "contingency" (i.e. it's all luck). The Crucible of Creation has been criticised for using Gould's views as a straw man in a rather spiteful way (SCM started with views similar to Gould's, but became increasingly impressed with convergent evolution, and later implied that human-level intelligence is nearly inevitable, although some other lineage might have been the first or only example). We can get better sources. --Philcha (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been bold

edit

Hi Philcha. I have mulled over your points and clarifications, and previous drafts, and decided to be bold and make a revision, based on your explanations, to the article. I hope it meets with your approval. My pleas are twofold:

  • Whatever happens with this section, it has got to be clear that the BS fossils have theoretical signficance, not just that theories were applied to them.
  • It has got to be simple enough, and leave out enough of the uncertainty within the academic community debate, to be understandable to the lay reader. To the extent that uncertainties and details and potentially contradictory individual fossils or fossil assemblages are significant, they should be discussed elsewhere, under cladistics, or the individual species, or Cambrian explosion etc. I think i've trimmed the detail to the right level for this article and for the lay reader.

If you are happy with this revision (copyediting aside), i'm happy with it at GA. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

hamiltonstone, I think you've provided most of the link phrases we both felt were needed, and encouraged me to add a couple more. At the same time, the text must avoid scientific inaccuracies, and that limits how far the text can be simplified. It's not as difficult as maths, where readers run out of steam at 15-year old level if they don't assimilate the concepts and notations. But you know from geology that diagrams and simple text run out of steam when the processes that form rocks start to require some chemistry (I'm thinking of e.g. diagenesis and metamorphism).
I'm still concerned about your "it has got to be clear that the BS fossils have theoretical significance, not just that theories were applied to them." The fossils are material for testing and comparing hypotheses. The initial devising of hypotheses is not understood and may be idiosyncratic - e.g. Bob Bakker as a teenager though "there's something with our dinosaurs" (his reaction to current reconstructions), and Einstein said the germ of the special theory of relativity was his speculations about how the universe looked from the point of a photon. The significance of the BS fossils is in testing, comparing and refining hypotheses, and the hypotheses were largely consequences of other hypotheses, plus one paradigm shift. In addition, the BS carried the whole burden of evidence until the early 1980s; then serious analysis of Ediacaran organisms and preliminary results for Chengjiang provided more info about the timescales and the types of organisms. The story as a whole is a like a real-life detective - there's no master clue or flash of insight that solves the case just like that; the initial evidence is fragmentary, some turns out to be irrelevant or even misleading, the significant of other items is ignored for a long time; early speculations may suggest searches for further evidence; gradually the evidence and speculations become coherent enough for hypotheses to be tested and compared; eventually there's a verdict; some cases go to appeal, and some of these are overturned.
So get what, I've had another go:
  • The Durham / Glaessner hypothesis (long history obscured by gaps in fossil record) goes back to its place in the chronology (1970s), otherwise it looks like Cloud and co. ("explosive") held the field in the early 1970s - there was a "gradual vs explosive" debate before Whittington & co. published their re-analysis of the BS fossils. However, I've prefaced this debate with your "Darwin's view – that gaps in the fossil record accounted for the apparently sudden appearance of diverse life forms – still had scientific support over a century later".
  • Added "The fossils of the Burgess Shale were hidden in store rooms until the 1960s" until Whittington and co got to work. A slight simplication, as Simonetta (1960s) and earlier a guy called Hutchinson produced "fanciful" reconstructions of Opabinia, see Wonderful Life.
  • Edited to "the fossils became central to the debate about how quickly animals arose, and were interpreted as evidence that all the living bilaterian phyla had appeared in the Early Cambrian". "became" is vital - the BS fossils were almost completely ignored between Walcott's death and the work of Whittington & co. (the exceptions being Simonetta and Hutchinson).
  • Re cladistics, changed "a new approach to evolutionary systematics" to "which appeared in the 1950s". Cladistics started as an attempt to make sense of living insects, and for over a decade the literature was all in German. What was new in the 1970s was the English-speakig paleontologists got excited about cladistics.
  • Reinstated "In the 1990s it was suggested that some Ediacaran fossils from 555 to 542 million years ago, just before the start of the Cambrian, may have been primitive bilaterians, and one, Kimberella, may have been a primitive mollusc." AFAIK this was the first credible evidence of Precambrian animals more complex than jellyfish. The BS and Chengjiang fossils were evidence that the Cambrian explosion was already completed. Some very, very early Cambrian fossils (Helcionellids in the small shelly fauna) looked like molluscs. But Kimberella make it credible to look a further 13 MY further back in time.
  • Removed "Thus the fossils of the Burgess Shale went from being considered evidence in support of an 'explosive' beginning to Cambrian life, to being understood as evidence of a more gradual evolution of animal diversity." This sentence takes one side in a going debate. For example Budd, who produced the lobopod-Anomalocaris-arthropod cladogram in the article, regards the Cambrian explosion as "rapid but resolvable" and thinks (last I looked) than Precambrian animals were diploblastic (composed of main 2 cell leyers, as jellyfish and other cnidaria are). Butterfield described Kimberella as a "probable bilaterian", i.e. he places no bets. On the other Fedonkin thinks Kimberella was a near-mollusc, and Erwin and Davidson (2002) regarded the animal as "most likely of protostome affinity" ( triploblastic and one of the 2 "hyper-groups"TM that have a gut that runs all the way from the mouth to the anus). IMO this issue is too complex to handle at all in Fossils of the Burgess Shale. --Philcha (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, thank you - i've enjoyed collaborating on this, and I am sorry I've been pretty slow to respond to your very diligent actions in response to each point that i've raised. I think this now meets the two criteria i was concerned about: the use of jargon; and ensuring it "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Perhaps your last point, just above, could be covered by a sentence along these lines: "The fossils of the Burgess Shale continue to be important to the ongoing analysis of the origins of Cambrian life." It would just be nice to have a sentence that wraps things up. i will leave that in your hands - i am passing this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Other minor stuff no longer under consideration

edit
  • Re text "crown group" partly obscured by "stem group", in what browser & version plus OS and version, plus any settings that affect text size? --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    If it's IE 7 or higher, I think I know the answer. IE (incl v 6) used to ignore absolute sizes (e.g. in px), contrary to WCAG. IE 7 has now caused confusion by introducing 2 mechanisms:
    • Text resizing affects text but not images. This is what can mess up annotated images, as the text is scaled up but the image content and frame are not. FF and Opera do not use the mechanism.
    • Zoom also scales the image as well as text annotations, and thus does not mess up the relative sizes and locations of annotations in annotated images. FF and Opera have had zoom for years, and it's more useful as it also scales text implemented as part of an image (e.g. as in the WP logo).
    The zoom control sequences (CTRL and + to increase, CTRL and - to decrease) are the same in FF, Opera and IE. In FF and Opera, there also menu items for zoom, which show the control sequences. In IE 7 only text resizing appears in the menu - in order to learn zoom, users must look up some external source. --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference CaronJackson2006Taphonomy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale&oldid=1203581195"