Talk:Ediacaran biota

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ediacaran biota article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (centre, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ediacaran biota is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 10, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 8, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 28, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 16, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the enigmatic Ediacaran biota (fossil pictured) have been classified into every major group of lifeforms, including their own kingdom?
Current status: Featured article

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology: Cambrian High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cambrian explosion task force (assessed as High-importance).

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ediacaran (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ediacaran, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.EdiacaranWikipedia:WikiProject EdiacaranTemplate:WikiProject EdiacaranEdiacaran

Does one of the Yorgia's show predation?

Thanks Aleksey for responding! One more question on this magnificent picture: the Yorgia that left the chain of trace platforms seems to be missing a part on it's top (north if it was a map) side. This looks like a predator has take a bite out of it. I suppose it has been checked in detail, has there been any consensus on what caused that? It is also shown in the marks, so if something like that had happened, it clearly survived the attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This body part is pulled up and hidden in the sndstone bed. Do not forget that it was a soft-bodied animal, capable of shrinking, bending. In addition, their fossils are imprints of semi-decomposed deformed corpses compressed by the weight of sand. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

FA issues

So, I've been looking at this article and I am kind of concerned about a few things:

There is a fair amount of citations in the lead which don't seem necessary to me. And many of these statements should be in the article instead.
Many many paragraphs are not sourced.

That said, I see that there are many recent sources. Is someone still maintaining the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retallak’s ideas given undue emphasis.

despite the reservations provided in the article, it still gives undue weight to proposal that the Ediacaran biota Are lichen. 73.158.212.95 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that other scientists have rejected the suggestion (more than are currently cited, btw), it does seem WP:UNDUE to give it quite so many column-inches as if we supported it: who knows, maybe an editor did. I'll add a ref or two and cut the material down a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Retallack himself added about that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then we've done the right thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about top image

I have moved the following comment from the caption of the top image on the article page to here: It is important to note that this representation is inaccurate; the Cyclomedusa-like organism is interpreted in this image as a jellyfish, a belief which is no longer accepted today. The caption does say that the image represents the biota of the period as it was understood in 1980. A more up-to-date image would be great, but I don't think the quoted comment belongs in the caption of this image. Discussion of how scientists' understanding of the life forms of the biota have changed belongs in the body of the article. Donald Albury 13:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The image situation is unfortunate, but while we look for an updated one, readers should know right under the image that the depiction is inaccurate. cyclopia ^speak! 07:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a variation of the same image without the jellyfish. While not optimal, I guess it settles the issue until we find a better image. cyclopia ^speak! 08:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Near-collapse of the geomagnetic field

Should we add that the near-collapse of the earth's geomagnetic field may have contributed to the oxygenation of the earth and the appearance of the Ediacaran biota? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01360-4 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]