The Burgess creatures, they believed, weren't as strange and various as they appeared at first sight. "They were often no stranger than trilobites," Fortey says now. "It is just that we have had a century or so to get used to trilobites. Familiarity, you know, breeds familiarity." This wasn't, I should note, because of sloppiness or inattention. Interpreting the forms and relationships of ancient animals on the basis of often distorted and fragmentary evidence is clearly a tricky business. Edward O. Wilson has noted that if you took selected species of modern insects and presented them as Burgess-style fossils nobody would ever guess that they were all from the same phylum, so different are their body plans. Also instrumental in helping revisions were the discoveries of two further early Cambrian sites, one in Greenland and one in China, plus more scattered finds, which between them yielded many additional and often better specimens.
他们认为，布尔吉斯动物群并不像初看起来那么古怪，那么多种多样。“它们往往不比三叶虫更古怪，”福泰这时候说，“问题仅仅在于，我们已经花了一个多世纪来习惯于三叶虫。你要知道，熟悉了，也就不觉得怪了。”我应当指出，这不是因为马虎或不重视。根据往往是变了形的和支离破碎的证据来解释古代动物的形态和关系，显然是一件很难办的事。爱德华·O·威尔逊指出，要是你挑选几种现代昆虫，把它们充作布尔吉斯化石，那么谁也猜不着它们都是属于同一门的，因为它们的体形横剖面是如此不同。现在，又发现了两处寒武纪初期的遗址，一处在格陵兰，一处在中国，再加上一些零星的发现，又获得了许多往往是更好的标本，这些对重新分类也是很有利的。

The upshot is that the Burgess fossils were found to be not so different after all. Hallucigenia, it turned out, had been reconstructed upside down. Its stilt-like legs were actually spikes along its back. Peytoia, the weird creature that looked like a pineapple slice, was found to be not a distinct creature but merely part of a larger animal called Anomalocaris.
结果发现，布尔吉斯化石并非差别很大。原来，致幻虫在修复过程中给颠倒了。它的高跷似的腿实际上是它背部的刺。这种样子像一片菠萝的怪物被发现并不是一种与众不同的动物，只是一种名叫纹花虾的较大动物的组成部分。