Talk:Yorgia

Etymology

(I've just had a batch of downloading original papers, so this may well be answered there.) It is common practice to give an etymology (what the name means and what it refers to) when publishing a formal description. The "waggoneri" part of the name is obviously a refernece to Ben (?) Waggoner, a researcher in the field ; "Yorgia" sounds to me like Russian for "yorg", a hedgehog. I'll check the references shortly. The "Palaeonological Journal" looks like a mis-type, but I'll check that too. Aidan Karley (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Genus Yorgia. From the Yorga River.
Species Y. waggoneri. In honor of Ben Waggoner which has found first specimen in 1994 beside the Yorga River.
Name "Yorga" is from Old Russian word "ёрга"/"ёргать" "yorga"/"yorgat' ": "fidgety"/"to fidget"; or special wooden stick for extraction of the sunken networks.
A hedgehog in Russian sounds as "yozh" or "yozhik" Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Animals?

Hi, thanks for your additions to this article - it's looking a lot better now! The one thing which troubles me is that non-metazoan hypotheses are not well represented in the text, leading to a point of view being presented that does not have universal acceptance, as far as I understand it. Perhaps my lack of Russian is holding me back, but I don't recall any of the English literature asserting that the organisms are animals with as much confidence as you are! Ivantsov's done some great work on this and other organisms, but his point of view is one of very many in these controversial organisms!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Yorgia and others Proarticulata it is Animals!

Hi, Martin (Smith609).

"Its classification is uncertain; while some authors maintain that it is an animal...." These doubts are groundless.

"....perhaps an early arthropod,[2]".... ????????? This idea was refuted in the article of Ivantsov, A.Y. (2001). "Vendia and Other Precambrian "Arthropods"". Paleonological Journal 35 (4): 335-343.

"....others suggest that it may not be an animal, but a member of a separate clade - [3]...." Buss, L.W. and Seilacher, A. (1994). "The Phylum Vendobionta: A Sister Group of the Eumetazoa?". Paleobiology 20 (1): 1–4. The idea about Vendobionta (it is giant unicellular animals - Seilacher’s interpretation) has no wide recognition, Seilacher is the author and only he supports it.

Eumetazoa - subkingdom of the animal kingdom comprising all animals except the sponges and the wormlike mezozoans.

"....perhaps even something resembling a fungus.[4]...." ????????? This is a quote from article of Peterson, Kevin J.; Waggoner, Ben; Hagadorn, James W. (2003). "A Fungal Analog for Newfoundland Ediacaran Fossils?" Integrative and Comparative Biology 43 (1): 127–136. "Our fungal model is not appropriate for many other Ediacaran taxa, including such enigmatic Mistaken Point taxa such as the "triangles" (Clapham and Narbonne, 2002), and the "bilaterian" forms from younger deposits such as Dickinsonia, Kimberella, Yorgia, and Parvancorina. Dickinsonia specimens do show contraction, distortion, and shrinkage that could result from muscle contraction (Seilacher, 1989; Gehling, 1991); some also show internal structures that resemble metazoan gut caeca or gonads (Gehling, 1991; Jenkins, 1996; Dzik and Ivantsov, 2002). Trace fossils, including escape structures, have also been found associated with Kimberella and Yorgia (Gehling, 1996; Seilacher, 1997; Ivantsov and Fedonkin, 2001). Finally, taxa such as Dickinsonia and Kimberella, not only grow like metazoans (Runnegar, 1982; B.W., personal observation), but are restricted to shallow-water deposits within one biotic province (Waggoner, 2003)."

"Ivantsov's done some great work on this and other organisms, but his point of view is one of very many in these controversial organisms!" He is the best and the sole expert on the Vendian animals of the Phylum Proarticulata, and all experts on Vendian Biota recognize this. Andrey Ivantsov studies of the Proarticulata more than ten years.

And I advise to you to read this book:

Mikhail A. Fedonkin, James G. Gehling, Kathleen Grey, Guy M. Narbonne, and Patricia Vickers-Rich foreword by Arthur C. Clarke. "The Rise of Animals. Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia". 2008, 344 pp., 677 color illustrations

Aleksey Alnagov (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for shattering my false beliefs! I've re-written the article considerably. Perhaps you would consider visiting Protarticulata and developing some of the arguments of their classification there? I daren't do it myself as I have just demonstrated how loose my grasp of this topic is!

And thanks for the book recommendation - I'll get it out of the library tomorrow! All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Martin!
"Perhaps you would consider visiting Protarticulata and developing some of the arguments of their classification there?" I want to do this in September.
I can send some articles to your email ...if you are interested. See my email in http://vendian.net76.net/contacts.htm
New reconstruction of the Kimberella quadrata http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/news_data/h/h1/2008/news4/080517_1.htm
Best regards, Aleksey. Alnagov (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening of Article

"Yorgia waggoneri is a discoid Ediacaran organism. However, its growth form indicates that may not be the case." What does this mean? It may not be discoid? Ediacaran? An organism? Shofutai (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, the second sentence is intended to communicate how the identities of Ediacaran organisms are in a constant state of flux as new information from fossils force researchers to reassess what these things were. Having said that, on the other hand, without specification, the second clause is useless. The second sentence was originally addressing an uncited claim that Yorgia may have been a missing link between Spriggina and Dickinsonia in the first sentence that was deleted. I've fixed that.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)