From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Archive 1

Do Nectaspida belong to the Class Trilobita ?[edit]

I do not find any reference that the Nectaspida where assigned to the class Trilobita. How ever they are very trilobite like but anyway they do not have a carapace like Trilobites what is in my opinion quite a higher level systematic feature. Walch himself mentioned the "wonderful preserved carapace of this unknown crustacean species". (Walch, 1771) As long nobody can provide an scientific valid publication that place the Nectaspida inside the class Trilobita i would see this quite critical. I personal would like to see somehow Naraoiids inside the Order of Trilobita. In the other hand they are despite the similarity also very different. So maybe Nectaspida are that close related to trilobites as it can be without being a trilobite. This discussion seems to be longer around.

-- (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


It looks like its pronounced tril-o-bite, but I've also heard TRY-lo-bite. Any definitive sources? I suppose "TRY" echoes the Greek root for three? Tumacama (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer TRY-loh-bite myself, but I've also heard it pronounced TRILL-oh-bite. One of the strangest thing about zoology is everyone teaches themselves how to say things, so you end up with multiple pronunciations of EVERYTHING. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 01:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Bob -- it really is TRY-loh-bite for the reason Tumacama gave. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Acatualy it is Walch was German so it is "Tril-lo-bit" But in english it is of course "Try- low - byte" ;-) Who cares, all systematic Taxa are spoken in local pronounce. -- (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


What subphylum were trilobites in? (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well there is also the subphylum Arachnomorpha Lameere, 1890 in discussion. As i said before high level systematics is a hobby of old scientist that like to believe the move big things if the work in that thing. There is in my opinion no right or wrong. But that do not means it is useless, we need high level systematics and the old bored man that take "care" of it. -- (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is it: ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to fix it, but the grammar in the Fossil Record section is broken. Thought I'd mention in case anyone with time is watching...Belltower (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Chemical composition of fossils?[edit]

What are the typical chemical composition of trilobites as found in the rock record? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

→I believe your question aimed for trilobites from limestones such as from the Devonian of Morocco. Trilobites had most likely a carapace that was beside organic components mainly made from calcite (not Aragonite). The carapace was highly organised in different layers. The other prismatic layer. The corse laminated layer and in inner fine laminated layer. Due the progress of Fossilization the fossil can have a different chemical composition.

Under good conditions (Mostly in Limestones or carbonatic marls) the Trilobite shell is still preserved in Calcite with exceptional micro details. There is sometimes no trace of re-mineralisation visible. If the conditions where not so good they are preserved in a recrystallized state of Calcite. Beside that Trilobite fossils can be preserved in many different ways. Depending on the Diagenesis of its surrounding rock.

-- (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The trilobites were the most successful species roaming the earth for over 270 million years.[2][edit]

This is should be change to reflect that they are an Order and not just one species. Would it constitute synthesis to change it?--Adam in MO Talk 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the first half of the sentence to "The trilobites were among the most successful of all early animals" Whatcha think?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


I find this statement from the article to be somewhat confusing:

"By comparison with living arthropods, trilobites are thought to have reproduced sexually, producing eggs..."

After rereading the phrase a few times, I realize that the point is that an educated guess was made about trilobite reproduction based upon the behavior of living arthropods. However, on first reading it seemed to me that the article was stating that living arthropods do NOT reproduce sexually, which makes little sense to me (I know that arthropods rarely engage in parthenogenesis, but that is an exception rather than a rule). I don't mean to make trouble for anyone, but I really feel like this could be put more clearly...perhaps someone with greater knowledge would not make the mistake I did, but this is an encyclopedia "for everyone" and the language of this phrase could be somewhat misleading to the layman. I would edit it myself but I'm hardly an expert on such things and I feel like it would be better for a more knowledgeable individual to rephrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If that were the case, then the sentence would have been worded as "In contrast to living arthropods, trilobites are thought to have been reproduced sexually..."--Mr Fink (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Trilobite anatomy[edit]

For those interested, I have been working on improving the coverage on trilobite anatomy here: User:Obsidian Soul/sandbox/Trilobite anatomy, mostly by providing diagrams. It's incomplete, as I got distracted by other stuff. My main problem now is where to put it. There are three options - merge it back with the Trilobite article, distribute it among the different arthropod anatomy pages as subsections, or make it a separate page in Trilobite anatomy (while removing the redundant info in Trilobite). Thoughts? Feel free to improve/correct/take parts out of/etc. the sandboxed article.-- ObsidinSoul 13:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like it. Have always had an issue with getting the balance right between detail swamping the reader with too much info and personally think Trilobite quite big enough already. A Trilobite anatomy page is the way to go I think, then further divisions as/if necessary. Will need to leave enough behind for "flavour" and make sure things like Hypostome also gets a bit of treatment to make everything consistent (arthropod vs. trilobite) etc... very happy to help when I have time. Psuedomorph (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was what I was worried of, heh. Remerging it to Trilobite would make an extremely lengthy (and detailed) article. I guess it's best to create a new page then. And yep should leave less detailed versions on Trilobite as well as the respective more generalized arthropod anatomy articles (Hypostome, Pygidium, Cephalon, etc.) with links back to it.
And please, I'd appreciate the help, heh. Most of what I know about trilobite anatomy I learned while researching that page a few weeks ago. Just treat that page as public, most of the info is already derived from this article with just the diagrams and layouting sorted. It's a slowburn article so anything that gets it finished earlier would be for the best. Add what you think should be added, I can make more diagrams as well if requested. :) Thanks.-- ObsidinSoul 14:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Like the template as well, should prove invaluable linking everything together. Most of my knowledge of trilobites comes from reading and hands an experience and listening a lot, but doing ok for an igneous geochemist! Psuedomorph (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, a geochemist is still closer to a paleontologist than a 3d artist. ;) -- ObsidinSoul 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

More images?[edit]

 ObsidinSoul... brought it up and I've been thinking that images/diagrams of

1: hypostome (3 types?) and ventral anatomy (such as doublure and apodemes)

2: biramous limb/leg & gill structure

3: the three different eye types

would be very helpful in explaining some features. Psuedomorph (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's already an illustration for the types of hypostomes in User:Obsidian Soul/sandbox/Trilobite anatomy. Nothing on ventral anatomy, leg/gill structure, and eye types though. If you know of any existing illustrations I can base diagrams on, I'll get to work on it.-- ObsidinSoul 07:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I should really read more and talk less :) I've probably got something somewhere that I can scan/post but probably still in copyright, could be used as the basis for something else though. Will post to your sandbox. Psuedomorph (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha, just holler if I can help as well. :) -- ObsidinSoul 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Trilobite pic[edit]

Phacops Morocco.jpg

I think its a Phacopida Phacopina, but someone with experience on the matter should help on identifying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcattz (talkcontribs) 00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Trilobitomorpha Stormer 1944[edit]

The Class Trilobita and the subphylum Trilobitomorpha are not the same and should not redirect on the same Article. I know that this high level systematic stuff is highly disputed. But regardless is this Taxa is considered as valid* or not valid it is not the Same as the class Trilobite. The class Trilobita is only one class inside. (* i guess in high level systematics it is not the question of valid or invalid it is about how reasonable a classification is.) -- (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC) —


link for ten cool fact about trilobites only ten but in love with the ocean. My mom got me this cool new book about the ocean and I found Trilobites in it .I was so amazed , I found some thing that I could not categorize in a species . I don't know much but if you do or if you know any thing please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)