Talk:Proarticulata

Question

'Scale-armored' Proarticulata, c.560 Mya, resembles 'simplified' scale-armored Halwaxiida, c.50 Myr later. If so, then the 'head-shield' seen on Dickinsonia may, ultimately, be ancestral to the 'cap-shields' on Halkieria. And, Proarticulata may, ultimately, be ancestral to Mollusks (Mollusca).66.235.26.150 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Question Concerning Archaeaspis

I just did a quick search of Archaeaspis, and, it appears to a (very primitive) trilobite, according to this picture of it [1] And my question is that, should we keep it in Proarticulata? --Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC) After more google-fuing, I found that Archaeaspis is the name of a fallotaspid trilobite from Lower Cambrian of Inyo, California. The proarticulatid has been renamed Archaeaspinus fedonkini.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In or Outside of Bilateria

Hey, @Alnagov:, do you know if Proarticulata is within Bilateria or outside of it? Or, of any sources that discuss its position in Animalia?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I was basing my edit on what it says at Bilateria which is that it is part of the subkingdom Eumetazoa and as this article says that they are bilaterians hence my edit. They either arent bilaterians or they are part of the subkingdom Eumetazoa. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, SqueakBox. That's why I want to get Alnagov's verification, our resident Precambrian expert, over whether or not they're bilaterians or not in Eumetazoa.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am writing List of animal orders in my user space and am coming across contradictions though I am generally being very cautious editing and will be more inclined from now on to look for verification or bring contradictions to a talk page. This is new material for me. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 06:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me, I need to remember to update pages that refer to Vetulicolia as a phylum, rather than a subgroup of Chordata.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If any substantial research is done, it becomes obvious that PROARTICULATA ARE NOT BILATERIAN. Excuse the capitalization, but it is clear that many vendian species are not bilaterally symmetrical. ---- R. G. Taylor, rgtaylor02@sprynet.com { B. A. Geology, 1960, Retired.} 16:32 18 August 2015.

According to Andrey Ivantsov the Proarticulata are not true Bilateria, they independently acquired bilateral body plan. Proarticulata are not the ancestors of modern and extinct (Cambrian) Bilateria. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

But I don't agree with his hypothesis. I think Proarticulata is true Bilateria and not the most primitive. Nothing contradicts this. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC))