|
Hello, shall we please speak on pm here? I working on a paper on anomalocaridid's feeding and I would appreciate if you let me use your fantastic drawings to illustrate a food chain.
Your,
TBR
- Hi, you can feel free to use my illustrations posted on Wikipedia. You can also use only the organism part and ommit the white background and ID of the illustration, as long as my name (Jun) and twitter ID (@ni075) are noted somewhere.--Junnn11 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, your full name would bee better if you can pm it to me, now I have just added Jun on the paper
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megacheira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Junnn, I am a big fan of the images you draw of stem-arthropods, and thank you for your substantial editing on the topic. I know that you have a specific interest in the Arthropod head problem and the homology of arthropod appendages. I am puzzled why you would dismiss the latest research paper on Megacheirans (published 3 months ago) as if this was some minority view, when the study seems to be a significant re-examination of several important specimens. Do you have any specific objections to the conclusions of the researchers? Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hemiauchenia, thanks for your support and editing on the topic. About the latest study, I personally treat it with caution, specifically the homology of head appendages.
- For one thing, the study only point out the uncertainties of the previous neural evidences, but did not actually re-examinate nor provide a new neural evidence that could directly support their hypothesis. That's why I rather described it as "suggested" instead of "found". Additionally, a paper agreed on the validity of previous neural evidences with new specimen provided just published immediately before it. I also curious about why the appendage-like developmental pattern of arthropod labrum (which homologized to non-appendicular anterior sclerite by them) wasn't mentioned in that research.
- I agreed that the non-homology between frontal appendage and great appendage isn't a hypothesis that is unambiguously supported, the uncertainties of available materials is true, but the latest study isn't something that could fully redefine it. But anyway, I think your edition on those of mine is better, my english isn't good enough to make it sounds neutral. Thank you.--Junnn11 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the gracious reply Junnn, I think it's really difficult to get the balance right in academic disputes like this, as suggesting that one answer is right than the other when the answer is not clear would violate Wikipedia:No original research, however, giving false balance to a minority academic view would consitute undue weight. However I think my inital edit was too unbalanced in favor of the 2020 paper out of ignorance, and I think your edits were a helpful correction. The arthropod head problem is really complex and I need to understand it properly before making edits on it in the future. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Junnn11! Thanks for the friendly thank notification. I plan to edit a few more minor typos I noticed. I hope this is helpful and not intrusive, but if there is any issue, please let me know. Your contributions on arthropods are incredible. Enby (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Enby, thanks for your edit. Since I'm not very good at English and some of the articles are too massive to have an easy check on typos, it helps a lot. I'll try to do my best.--Junnn11 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Junnn11. I appreciate the work you've been doing on stem-euarthropods and other enigmatic taxa and I don't mean to offend your edits. However, I see that you use the clade Synziphosurina a lot. This clade has been shown to be paraphyletic and invalid. The only reason it hasn't been formally synonymised or invalidated is because some of its "members" and their relationships with other genera are poorly known. In addition, literally all its members are already assigned to a different clade, usually Planaterga and Prosomapoda. I think we should remove the clade from Wikipedia and stick to the newest studies, especially Lamsdell's of 2013. Super Ψ Dro 10:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reply. For clarity, I treat "Synziphosurina/synziphosurine" only as a category instead of a clade (which should be monophyletic) nor a valid taxon. Although it is not a valid taxon, "synziphosurine" are at least their unambigious affiniy, and still had been used by numerous literatures as a loose category after Lamsdell 2013 (e.g. 1, 2, 3). In the other word, the unacceptance of "synziphosurines" as a taxon does not mean the "synziphosurine" taxa stopped being "synziphosurines". At least for now, I think It is still helpful to use the term in order to understand the history of their still-ongoing research. Until the term has become barely-used in scientific literature for years (like the "Merostomata"), I think it is still too early to completely remove the term from any description of the "synziphosurine" taxa. As you noticed, some of them are yet to be reviewed and their phylogenetic position may drastically changed (e.g. Willwerathia had been placed within Xiphosura in Lamsdell 2013, but outside of it in all later analysis 1, 2, 3, 4 so far).
- P.S. Sorry if I make any typo, I'm not very well in english communications.--Junnn11 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. Lamsdell is preparing another paper on the phylogenetics of Xiphosura, perhaps he will clarify the situation of the synziphosurines... Super Ψ Dro 12:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Junnn11, can you add your restoration of Haikoucaris in the Wikipedia English article about it? If yes, i will send you a thank you notification for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealLTG (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Also thanks for creating the article.--Junnn11 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 滇.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stanleycaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rake.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35630423 Jpatokal (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cucumericrus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: