Talk:Rangeomorph
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Categories:
|
I get no google hits on this. I would expect them to show up on google if they were real. Thue | talk 16:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I tried this too but here is the link to the Science article Azhyd 18:31, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
- There's an article about them here: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996162 - I just added some details from it to the article. Looks like it's based on the Science article Azhyd mentioned above. Bryan 03:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Category?
[edit]I'm stumped as to what category to file these little critter under. Neither Extinct Plants nor Extinct Animals seems appropriate. Any suggestions Reyk YO! 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
They could just be put down as a seperate kingdom of life, seeing that they are very unlike a lot of animals, and they don't look like they photosynthesized
- Category:Ediacaran biota should suffice. Verisimilus T 10:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No authors' names
[edit]No authors' names are given for ""On the eve of animal radiation: phylogeny, ecology and evolution of the Ediacara biota". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (1): 31. Jan 2009. The citation format is impenetrable, or I'd fix it.--Wetman (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Feeding by osmosis
[edit]Could you bright sparks stop referring to osmotrophy as feeding by osmosis? Or learn a bit of physics?89.168.180.105 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)