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)

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)

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