>Not all developed the hard parts. Some soft-bodied forms are found only in
>the Burgess and no where else. This implies that there were soft bodied
>forms which we have no record of in more normal type deposits.
I think most of the Burgess fauna has been found elsewhere. You could only
draw that implication if you could show me something about the Burgess
Shale that makes it 'less normal' besides the well preserved soft-bodied
forms it contains.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu