Talk:Spriggina

Spriggina received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Palaeontology Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animals Low‑importance

Spriggina is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Marine life (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

In one speculative view, a spriggina would wriggle up onto a stationary frond-like, mushroom-like or plant-like lifeform, release digestive juices, let the juices loosen up the victim's flesh, and them absorb it internally.

It may actually be the mouth that was the Cambrian-explosion-triggering device, not eyesight, as is commonly speculated. A mouth allows one to eat on the run. This could explain why the precambrian critters mostly dissappeared: they were overly adapted to external digestion such that they couldn't get away from preditors and digest food at the same time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.137.111 (talk • contribs)

Cite reliable sources for this speculation, and it can be used. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Stephen C Meyer it actually exhibits glide, not bilateral, symmetry. Also according to Rodin, Szathmary and Rodin in, “on the origin of the genetic code and tRNA before translation” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FE28:207F:8700:C8F:33CF:E9DF:3A8B (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material by User:Philcha moved from Cambrian explosion

The following could use incorporation here. Smith609 Talk 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but its body segments seem to be offset across the midline rather than being symmetrically paired as as they are in all known arthropods;^[1]

Done08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

References

^ Ivantsov, A.Y. 2001. "Vendia and other Precambrian "arthropods"". Paleontological Journal. 35: 335–343.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

To fuse or not to fuse...

"its front few segments fused to form a head" (Introduction) would seem to contradict "The organism was segmented, with no fused segments" (Morphology).Tapatio (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Spriggina has "differentiated parts" is controversial. Some reconstructions show a distinct "plow" for a head. But the fossils seem to show a more ambiguous transition from the body to the plow portion, suggesting the plow is just a thicker "segment". It's unclear what's actually going on at the "head". It matters in debates about whether Spriggina may be a single cell, or possibly a single multi-nucleus cell, as found in some existing large-cell life-forms. One interpretation is that the fact it has "trouble" forming a clear head structure is evidence of being single-celled. Another is that because the most frontal plow segment may break off, the segments just behind it are "getting ready" to be a plow by gradually thickening up, creating a kind of twisted look seen in some fossils. In this interpretation, a given segment has to grow wider to cover both left and right to serve as a proper plow. Those segments just behind the final plow are thus in mixed stages of widening/thickening, some covering say 2/3 of the width, giving the "mid head" the asymmetrical appearance seen in many fossils. This interpretation doesn't directly depend on a particular cell structure model, but may imply that each segment is a cell in itself. --146.233.0.202 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a change to the article? If so, please provide reliable sources to support such changes. - Donald Albury 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

strange "may have"

Just a question to those who have access to the sources: it's interesting, is there any fossil evidence for speculations like "may have been predatory", "may have borne eyes and antennae"? And about the head - I agree with Tapatio, it doesn't seem that the way of head forming is known. Stas000D (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ivantsov, A.Y. 2001. "Vendia and other Precambrian "arthropods"". Paleontological Journal. 35: 335–343.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]