Talk:Lorenzinites

Cnidaria confirmation

The confirmation that it is a cnidarian is relatively new and isn't prooved to be true yet, so take that information with a grain of salt, and if there's evidence pointing that it is / isn't a cnidarian I will be sure to add that information to the article itself.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus. Seems like you're the most read on this species. Please let me know if you think a different taxonomy would be appropriate. The taxonomy that is generated by the {{Speciesbox}} template is controlled by the page Template:Taxonomy/Lorenzinites, which I can help you modify. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Please be aware that, whilst this user may have read a few things and be a bit of an enthusiast, there is growing evidence in their editing to demonstrate that they are really not competent enough to understand them or to create articles about obscure organisms, and are often simply engaging in guesswork in lieu of proper interpretation of the sources they unearth. I shall be discussing that with them shortly on their userpage with a view to avoiding having to seek a topic ban at WP:ANI. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes. Thanks for the info. I've been gnoming new species articles lately. I just try to support people, and I leave the big decisions to others :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well , since Lorenzinites is a synonym for the genus rugoconites , there might be a possibility that the species itself is actually in the genus rugoconites , which either means two things:

1: Lorezinites rarus is actually a cnidarian , which , could mean that the phylum trilobozoa is actually a phylum comprised of some of the earliest cnidarian-like animals which don't have the medusa or sea anemone body plan

2: Lorenzinites rarus is actually a cnidarian , which means that L. rarus and the genus Lorenzinites (rugoconites) are actually cnidarians and are not not related to the phylum trilobozoa

There is no clear proof of these two possibilities but, I find it strange how L. rarus is actually considered to be a cnidarian , while also not looking like a cnidarian at all. But, in the reference from the google books website , it did say something along the lines that the specimen of L. rarus is actually just a deformed trilobozoan (I don't exactly remember what it said). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus

• In 1966, Glaessner, proposed this to be a new taxon and named it Lorenzinites (ref). However in 1984, the same author, Glaessner, subsequently amended his assessment as stating "I am inclined to consider this an aberrent Rugoconites, despite original reservations (Glaessner & Wade, 1966, p 609)". This is sufficient evidence for me to redirect this article to the genus Rugoconites, Obviously, if subsequent research can be unearthed which shows a different conclusion, I'm happy to see this taxon recreated, or directed elsewhere. At the moment, I don't see any evidence for a different, more modern conclusion. I seriously wish certain eponymous editor would learn to read and assess sources more carefully, rather than rush to create articles because it's a bit of a hobby for them. If they can't read, understand or remember the sources, they should not be messing around with this topic until they gain a level of understanding and competence commensurate with the complexity of the topic. See WP:CIR. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  You're evidence for its justification is practically almost 40 years old. Between 1999 and 2000, the way we view these enigmas changed drastically. Do you expect me to believe that after 40 entire years there won't be a re-examination of the species? Of course not since palaeontologists only care about examining layers of rock and describing new genera named after themselves.

  Quoting Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)) Finkoella and others on my talk page, "In simple fossils, described from single specimens (Lorenzinites, Wigwamiella), everyone sees what he wants, such fossils have no meaning and is currently forgotten by scientists."

  In any business there are professionals, and there are people of dubious dignity in personal and professional respects. The latter will be forgotten in the historical perspective, and the "species" erected by them will be redecribed (possibly years later), rejected, forgotten. And science does not give final unshakable answers, there are only attempts to get closer to the truth. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC))

  "In simple fossils, described from single specimens (Lorenzinites, Wigwamiella), everyone sees what he wants, such fossils have no meaning and is currently forgotten by scientists." The pioneers of the study of Ediacaran fossils were inexperienced and made many mistakes. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC))

  I would also like to say that since you've added a link to The Rise of Animals you take into consideration how older references (such as that book) are still trustful. That book still classifies Arborea as a junior synonym of Charniodiscus and the Ivesheadiomorphs as differentiated organisms. One of the things that the book gets right in the Alas of Precambrian organisms is that Wigwamiella is doubted as a separate genus. The link you provided also did not give any evidence of Lorenzinites being in the book and instead only shows that the page is unavailable. I Own the book although this is coming from the perspective of someone which doesn't own it so it can reflect on how much you and other editors depend on certain sources even if they don't even say anything about the subject in question. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  I never refer to papers that I have not read personally, I do not fantasize or deceive. The fact that someone does not open individual pages in Google books or he cannot read scientific articles with paid access is not my problem. Just as it is not my problem when the reader of my papers cannot find the articles to which I refer in them. In such cases, he can turn to someone for help in order to get the coveted papers.

  This 2007 book naturally gets a bit dated when new articles on some of the Ediacaran fossils are published, but this does not apply to othet fossils that have not research recently.

  As for a Lorenzinites, I advise you to look at this article. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC))

  Oops, you directed your comment to Nick Moyes, not to me. Sorry :) Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC))

  I intentionally quoted your reply from my talk page to show how references from 40 years ago are still considered reliable even though their authenticity and are still being used as proper evidence even though they could be disproven easily with new evidence. I specifically refer to the fact that the page in the book cannot be seen because its like saying something without clear/visible evidence.

  As for the article you've mentioned, Just thank you. I've been trying to get my hands on that article since I have more important things to spend my money on as such as textbooks and expanding my collection (I collect all kinds of fossils, not just Ediacaran). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I bought articles no more than 10 times out of several thousand. You can contact the author of the article on researchgate or use sci-hub and libgen. Publishers make money from library subscriptions and not from individual readers. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC))

  I've recently checked the article once again, it seems that the article only mentions Lorenzinites 2 times in it. I decided to revisit the publication that Lorenzinites was formally described in. https://www.palass.org/sites/default/files/media/publications/palaeontology/volume_9/vol9_part4_pp599-628.pdf Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Image

If anyone has a better image of this species I would be glad to put it here as I fondly remember there was another image of this species of possible trilobozoan on the internet some where showing the side view of the animal.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus