This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have a recent source that claims that Briggs' assignment to the Crustacea was mistaken. I'll provide the cite in a little bit but would also appreciate general guidance on what the best way to present alternate viewpoints in the article would be. I.e. Is there a new, non-crustacean consensus among palaeobiologists. Eluchil404 13:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is J. Berstroem and X.-G. Hou "Early Palaeozoic non-lamellipedian arthropods," in Crustacea and Arthopod Relationships: Festschrift for Fredrick R. Schram Stefan Koenemann and Ronald A. Jenner eds. Taylor and Francis (2005). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]