Talk:Peytoia

Laggania as scavenger/grazer?

Laggania had no fan tail, and its short stalked eyes were behind its mouth appendages, another reason why scientists don't think Laggania was a ruthless hunter, but rather the whale of its time- 530 million years ago.

I'm mentioning it here because I don't have any sources to work from, but there are some issues which need attention, besides the grammar-- particularly, which scientists have compared this creature to a whale and how does that relate to its eyes and tail?68.123.238.140 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time that I've seen this suggested (see discussion on Talk:Anomalocarid), and it isn't a totally off-the-wall hypothesis. Some reconstructions make for very different cranial morphology between fossils of Anomalocaris and this genus, and one could speculate on the selective factors and niche-specialization that might drive the size differences and putative eye-angle/location between the two... but I can't say that I've seen any published speculation in this area backed up by a comparison to the morphology of extant fauna. If someone would like to provide a citation discussing this theory, or better yet – to write a doctoral dissertation in this area, we'll be happy to cite you. Aderksen (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Sam Gon III's Trilobite website, there are two citations establishing a published record for this speculation:

• Dzik, J. and Lendzion, K. 1988. The oldest arthropods of the East European Platform. Lethaia, 21, 29-38.
• Nedin, C. 1995. The Emu Bay Shale, a Lower Cambrian fossil Lagerstätten, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 18, 31-40.

I do not have access to either of these journals, but if someone would like to read them and confirm this – or forward me a copy of the PDFs so that I can do it... we could finally resolve and support this point on the main page and in the genus-specific article.

Failing that, I might begin to argue that Mr. Gon is a sufficiently reputable resource for the period, that it might be worthwhile to cite him for these hypotheses? Aderksen (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image/Reconstruction

Would anyone like to find a slightly less blurry image of a Laggania fossil, or/and provide a reconstruction? I've always found it helpful to include both – the original data, and a current interpretation of that data. Aderksen (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The size comparison picture is of Anomalocaris!

The article shows a picture for size comparison and states is shows Peytoia, but it really shows Anomalocaris (see the same picture at the Anomalocaris article). Also the entire story about it's discovery make me wonder if somebody is not just giving renaming Anomalacaris here, because it is the story of Anomalocaris, I never encounter the name Peytoia in any site on Burguess shale animals.

Merge species here

Short species articles were split off from here, which goes against current WP:paleo guidelines[1] for splitting species article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Merge as above. There is (further) substantial overlap and not a great deal to say apart from that overlap, so it clearly makes sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't merge. The WP:PALEO guideline does not seem to me like it is placing a strict prohibition on species-level articles (other than those made necessary by the length of the genus article). Rather, it seems like a general guideline discouraging the creation of species articles that would be permastubs or redundant. I see neither of the species articles as being either of those things. It should be noted that the page Peytoia infercambriensis was originally created at Cassubia; P. infercambriensis only became a species of Peytoia relatively recently. The brevity of the Peytoia and Peytoia nathorsti articles is not likely to be their permanent state; much could be done to expand both of them (and, to a lesser extent, Peytoia infercambriensis as well). I believe that separate articles on the genus and both species are merited: the two species have distinct taxonomic histories, and there is much to be said about P. nathorsti that does not apply to P. infercambriensis. I think we would be ill-served by combining the two species into a single article. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Merge for now The current contents of all three articles don't justify splitting the content. There's too little of it and what is there extensively overlaps. If somebody had decided to actually work on the articles and they were all very substantial, then maybe keeping them would be justified, but in their current estate having separate articles is pointless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I feel that the articles on Peytoia and Peytoia nathorsti are both woefully inadequate, relative to the amount of information available on them. I would like the opportunity to try and work on them (or at least the Peytoia article) before this merge discussion is concluded. One of my concerns here is that you are demolishing the house while it's still being built; I would feel more assured that this discussion had come to a well-considered conclusion if I was able to expand these articles before this discussion closes. As such, I would like to request that this discussion remain open for at least one more week. If, given this opportunity, I am not able to expand these articles to a more satisfactory state, I will concede that at least Peytoia nathorsti and Peytoia do not warrant separate articles. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I would support such a good-faith attempt to expand these articles before closing the merge discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You were the one responsible for creating these articles over 6 years ago and have made no substantial effort to improve them since. At the very least Peytoia nathorsti should be merged and covered in this article because it is the type species on which the genus is based. Like LA, I am ambivalent about infercambriensis Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh, I suppose I was; I had honestly forgotten. I haven't really given radiodonts much consideration recently, until you brought attention to the issue with the merger. As I just said on the WikiProject Paleontology talk page, I disagree with the notion that something being the type species automatically means it should be merged with the genus. I have a vision in mind of how these articles could be written that I believe would be sufficient to justify separation of all three, but the question remains whether I can implement it. I would appreciate being given the opportunity to try. The last few weeks have been busy for me, and I have not had much opportunity to work on it much since this discussion started, but what's the harm in giving me a few more days to work on it now that my attention has been brought to the issue? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Merge. This is the common practice for extinct genera and species. And all these three pages don't have a lot of information. They can be easily integrated into one single article. We should only start even considering an exception to the common practice if the main article had gotten too long or something like that, but that's not the case. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Merge Peytoia nathorsti as type species. Agnostic regarding Peytoia infercambriensis; the synonymy seems to have limited attention and discussion in the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithopsis and Lythronaxargestes: noting that Peytoia infercambriensis hasn't been significantly improved since the 7th September 2022 call to given more time. So, time to merge? Klbrain (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not have the time to make the improvements I had hoped to, and Peytoia nathorsti was merged into Peytoia by Hemiauchenia a few weeks later, and I figured that meant the discussion was essentially over, with P. nathorsti being merged and P. infercambriensis being kept. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)