Talk:Tullimonstrum
 | Tullimonstrum is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Taxonomy
editCan't we wait that the scientific community debates and settle on this before we put that it is a lamprey in the taxobox? This has been modified the day of the publication of the article. Wikipedia isn't a science news journal, it should reflect a consensus and now we don't know if it is a consensus since this result is too fresh. A mention in a paragraph would be, for now, enough. Nicobola (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps the taxobox should just show the most inclusive clade that can be agreed upon... FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Size?
editWhy the hell isn't the animal's estimated SIZE not listed anywhere in the text of the article? Were it not for the 10mm rule displayed in the image of the fossil, one would have no reason not to believe the 'monster' was 20 meters long! A pretty pathetic oversight, IMHO. -70.251.67.255 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if it bothers you THAT MUCH, why don't you put in the size estimate yourself, instead of whine about it?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- most of the fossils I've seen personally range in size from as small as say 3 inches and 1 inch wide, and sometimes 3 inches long and 2 inches wide in the same size category, to roughly a foot long and 2-3 inches wide, it varies greatly as they are soft animals, so they can wind up distorted in situ, if its soft bodied, it typically isn't going to be anywhere near 20m long, its hard enough to find hard bodied fossils that big. pretty pathetic to nitpick the article because you think every monster is the loch-ness monster. --66.169.105.182 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
New Reconstruction In Progress
editToday's progress in redrawing my picture of Tullimonstrum. [1] What do you guys think?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- So far, looks good, I like the combination of one in a dynamic pose and the other in a more neutral pose. By the way, what are the things in the bottom of the image? --Rextron (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- At bottom is the head of the local chondrichthyid, Polysentor.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
some news - possible vertebrate
edithttps://phys.org/news/2019-11-mysterious-tully-monster-fossil.html 104.169.44.247 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)