Talk:Animal: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←Replaced content with '{{talkheader}}' |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{ArticleHistory|aciddate=15 December 2007}} |
|||
{{BT list coverage|animal}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Animals|importance=Top|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|||
{{Vital|class=B|importance=High}} |
|||
{{Tree of Life|importance=unknown|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
|||
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Natsci|core=yes|VA=yes|nested=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{to do|1}} |
|||
== Classification of Animalia (a possible one) == |
|||
sorry no raincheks <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.182.29.178|124.182.29.178]] ([[User talk:124.182.29.178|talk]]) 09:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
*Systema: [[Nature|Naturae]] |
|||
**Superdomain: [[Biota (taxonomy)|Biota]] |
|||
***Domain: [[Eucytota]] |
|||
****'''Kingdom: [[Metazoa]]''' |
|||
*****Phylum: [[Trilobozoa]] |
|||
****'''Subkingdom: [[Mesozoa]]''' |
|||
*****Phylum: [[Dicyemida]] |
|||
*****Phylum: [[Orthonectida]] |
|||
****'''Subkingdom: [[Parazoa]]''' |
|||
*****Infrakingdom: [[Spongiaria]] |
|||
******Phylum: [[Sea_sponge|Poriphera]] |
|||
****'''Subkingdom: [[Eumetazoa]]''' |
|||
*****Branch: [[Radiata]] |
|||
******Infrakingdom: [[Placozoa]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Placozoa]] |
|||
******Infrakingdom: [[Coelenterata]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Vendobionta]] † |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Myxozoa]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Cnidaria]] |
|||
*****Branch: [[Bilateria]] |
|||
******Grade: [[Protostomia]] |
|||
*******Infrakingdom: [[Platyzoa]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Gastrotricha]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Platyhelminthes]] |
|||
*******Superphylum: [[Gnathifera]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Gnathostomulida]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Cycliophora]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Micrognathozoa]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Rotifera]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Acanthocephala]] |
|||
******Infrakingdom: [[Lophotrochozoa]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Bryozoa]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Entoprocta]] |
|||
*******Superphylum: [[Lophophorata]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Phoronida]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Brachiopoda]] |
|||
*******Superphylum: [[Eutrochozoa]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Nemertea]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Sipuncula]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Annelid|Annelida]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Mollusca]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Echiura]] |
|||
********Phylum: [[Hyolitha]] † |
|||
******Infrakingdom: [[Ecdysozoa]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Chaetognata]] |
|||
******Superphylum: [[Aschelminthes]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Kinorhyncha]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Loricifera]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Priapulida]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Nematomorpha]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Nematoda]] |
|||
******Superphylum: [[Panarthropoda]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Tardigrada]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Onychophora]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Lobopodia]] † |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Arthropoda]] |
|||
******Grade: [[Deuterostomia]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Vetulicolia]] † |
|||
******Infrakingdom: [[Coelomopora]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Hemichordata]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Echinodermata]] |
|||
******Infrakingdom: [[Chordonia]] |
|||
*******Phylum: [[Chordata]] |
|||
== Should there not be anything about this?== |
|||
Animals are soooooo fuckig gay are specific to animals [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Any answers? Should this not be included? Hox gene are a group of homeobox gene that as far as I am aware of is found among every animals and only animals. Every animals have at least one Hox genes. [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[Hox gene]] does it have an article ?''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 18:20 [[24 March]] [[2006]] (UTC). |
|||
:No, Hox gene are a specific subgroup of Homeobox, not only animals have Homeobox, but only animals have Hox genes, the homeotic genes in plant are not Hox genes and should not be confounded. Just for comparaison humans and mice have 4 Hox clusters on 4 chromosomes(different). Even their paterns are similar in nearly all bilateral animals. Hox genes are believed to be necessary for the segmentation of the animal organism. In fact, on genetic bases, we can resume an entire article about animals by simply saying that animals have Hox genes. While I think this information is necessary in this article, I don't know where to put it, should there be a new category for that? [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==hi im kayleigh i wont to be famous so evre one say it with me kayleigh kayleigh ok that is weard ok bye babe evre one try to have fun lol not |
|||
==List of examples== |
|||
What is the big list of examples for? Wouldn't it be better as a separate article? [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 11:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:That discussion is already in progress above at '''Examples'''. [[User:Timrem|timrem]] 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::No it isn't it went off track, and they started talking about whether humans are animals. Anyway, I don't think this list should be here. You don't see in other articles, like [[plant]] or [[frog]]. We already include the phyla, which inlcudes common names, so the list should not be there. There is no encyclopaedic value, do you think that someone is going to actually read through those names for any purpose? --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Rhombozoa appear twice in classification== |
|||
== Cleaning Up == |
|||
This article needs a major clean up. There are two things I am proposing. Firstly, is the shortening of the taxobox. I think we need to follow the [[frog]] article, and just include the subregnum in the taxobox, and leave the phylum for a list article (like [[List of Anuran families]]). Secondly, the photos need some organisation. This is such a high level article, I think there should only really be featured pictures included if we can. I would like to have as much diversity in the photos as possible, but not have a gallery. I will go through [[WP:FP]], and pick out what I think is most appropriate. --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'roughly equivalent to what modern biology would classify as nonhuman mammal. For example, in the United States, state wildlife laws commonly use phrases such as "animals, birds and fish."' |
|||
This example doesn't fit, because the United States wildlife laws count reptiles as animals. Reptiles are not non-human mammals. |
|||
In the section "Origin and fossil record", the word Eukaryote link to the wikipedia page. --Pulu 7/16/07 |
|||
:It links to the article on Eukaryote, as it should. Do you see something else? -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 11:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Animals, sunlight, and other forms of obtaining energy == |
|||
I recently made an edit to this article (accidentally without first signing in) about creatures who live at [[hydrothermal vent]]s who are NOT dependent on sunlight for energy. This section needs to be expanded and explained more - I was quite surprised to see that this article still had the old-fashioned view that sunlight is absolutely necessary for all processes. Is anyone willing to help? [[User:Esn|Esn]] 16:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I took a stab clarifying animal nutrition. Any thoughts? [[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::changed the "All animals... sunlite" to "most" to deal with the vent issue. A sillier way of putting it would be "most animals are powered by nuclear fusion; the exception being animals living close to deep sea vents which are powered by nuclear fission processes". [[User:HughesJohn|HughesJohn]] ([[User talk:HughesJohn|talk]]) 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Orthonectida == |
|||
[[Orthonectida]] is listed twice in the taxobox. Where does it belong? [[User:Jimp|Jimp]] 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Propably under [[Agnotazoa]] but [[Bilatera]] claims to include [[Mesozoa]]=[[Rhombozoa]]+[[Orthonectida]] so that should probably also be changed. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Added External Link == |
|||
Link to LiveScience Animal page added to external links - page has number of new Nature-series video, user-submitted animal pictures, and a number of new image galleries and pictures. I work for LiveScience and we created this all-in-one page as any easy reference page for our users. Hope you enjoy it. [[User:Starexplorer|Starexplorer]] 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Link to the AnimalSearch search engine added to external links - This is a site developed by me as a hobby. It gives search results only from web pages that are animal related and contains many smaller web pages that users might have a hard time to find otherwise. The most information in it focuses on canadian and australian wildlife but you can find information about almost every kind of animal in there. I try to find and index at least one new web page per day so it is steadily growing. I hope you will find it useful. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.191.235.204|83.191.235.204]] ([[User talk:83.191.235.204|talk]]) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Your web page is soliciting advertisements. It is also inappropriate for you to be adding your own web page. Please read [[Wikipedia:External links]]. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== animal populations == |
|||
This is probably a stupid request to most of you, but can wiki have an article or topic about animal population growth or decline rates due to human involvement? I don't know where to put this.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:208.186.255.18|208.186.255.18]] ([[User talk:208.186.255.18|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/208.186.255.18|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:See [[Ecological economics]]. The External links at the end of that article may help you in your research of the subject. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Animal usage== |
|||
What is with the last two paragraphs in the lead? That is so incredibly innacurate, and badly written. It needs to be cited to death if you are going to make such silly assumptions. |
|||
:"The use of the word animal in law typically reflects the common pre-scientific use of the word, roughly equivalent to what modern biology would classify as nonhuman mammal. For example, wildlife laws commonly use phrases such as "animals, birds and fish." |
|||
This sounds like it was written by someone who has no knowledge of animals whatsoever. Mammals, birds and fish are not the only species which are commonly reffered to in law, especially since the awareness of [[decline in amphibian populations]]. Also, at least in Australian law, this is completely untrue, and has been since the 1950s. If it is something which occurs in America, that should be stated, cited, and moved to later in the article. Law can't risk being ambiguous, and if it they just want to talk about mammals, they wouldn't dare say animals. --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
My apologies for the wording of that section, which I have now modified. While I have studied biology and am familiar with wildlife law in the U.S., I am as ignorant of Australian law as most U.S. legislators apparently are of biology. (It is a real problem in the U.S., and I could list references, but I'm not sure how relevant it would be to the rest of the article.) --[[User:Sentience|Sentience]] 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:''The following comment moved from top of page to here per common practice on talk pages.'' |
|||
== Possible exclusion of some 'Insects' from the Animal Kingdom == |
|||
I noticed today in the second paragraph of the introduction, starting with 'The word "animal" comes from'... The line within this paragraph stating, 'and sometimes excludes insects (although including such arthropods as crabs).' is highly problematic to my understanding of taxonomy. I fail to see how any proper 'insect' could possibly be classified as outside of the kingdom. We need an exact citation of which insects could possibly be outside of the classification, or this statement needs to be deleted very quickly. [[User:Perditor|Perditor]] 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The statement is refering to how some laws classify different kinds of living things. Don't expect the law to conform strictly to scientific classification. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::What point does human law have in a scientific discussion? The article should reflect the scientific classification of insects as animals, not the arbitrary classification of laws with no basis in science. I believe that this sentence should be taken out, and because of the dispute as to Homo sapiens should be classified as an animal, there should be a sub section later on that deals with the controversies of human POV such as the classification on H. sapiens and some insects. Any objections? [[User:Perditor|Perditor]] 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Since this article has a general title of "animal" rather than a taxonomic title "Kingdom Animalia," some discussion of social issues is relevant. I agree that the article would be clearer if legal, philosophic and religious controversies were handled in separate sections from established science. --[[User:Sentience|Sentience]] 02:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::The real purpose is to help stop laymen from inputting false information, same as the part about humans often not being considered animals. --[[User:Savant13|Savant13]] 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Agnotozoa == |
|||
On the [[Talk:Agnotozoa]] page, I argue that the taxon [[Agnotozoa]] has some limited historical precedent but isn't really used by biologists today. Unless someone makes a case for keeping it, I'm going to remove the name from the Animal article, but leave the Agnotozoa article up as a historical reference. |
|||
[[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Who keeps putting Agnotozoa back under the taxobox? It's archaic. I'm going to remove it again. [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] 20:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Pterobranchia & Chaetognatha == |
|||
On February 8 of this year, a user added "and [[Pterobranchia]]" to the parenthetic description of "[[Chaetognatha]] (arrow worms)" in the taxobox. Unfortunately, I could find no reference that supports placement of pterobranchs within Chaetognatha, so I removed the reference and removed the (now redundant) wikification from the phrase "arrow worm". |
|||
Perhaps the good user intended to list pterobranchs as a separate phylum of [[deuterostome]] animals, which is may be justified, because some biologists appear to doubt that the two groups of [[hemichordate]]s are each other's closest relatives. So Pterobranchia may or may not belong in the taxobox, but seemingly not with the arrow worms. |
|||
[[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==differences in classification of superphyla== |
|||
The taxobox in Animalia and the article lists the [[Ecdysozoa]], [[Lophotrochozoa]], and [[Platyzoa]] as separate superphyla at the same level as [[Deuterostomia]] The article and taxobox for Bilateria, to which all these groups belong, recognizes the first three of them as members of [[Protostomia]], correlate to Deuterostomia, as does the classification in the talk for Animalia. There is also an article for [[Protostome]]; it & its taxobox similiarly group the three, as do the articles for Ecdysoza, Lophotrochozoa, and Platyzoa, all supported by both embryological and molecular data. |
|||
If these two scheme are in fact competitive analyses, surely the 2 hypotheses should at least be mentioned in all the relevant articles , instead of some silently adopting one and some the other. (I was taught protostomia, but that doesn't prove it correct) [[User:DGG|DGG]] 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I added a slight clarification that groups the protostome clades together, but we could use more about the higher phylogeny of animals. [[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==lack of punctuation== |
|||
for some reason, the second opening paragraph has no punctuation at the end of it. I quote: "...include particular, more bestial individuals" (note the lack of period or other mark after individuals). Is there any reason for this?[[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
My mistake - now I just have to find out what happened to it all! I quite liked it :(--[[User:Menswear|Menswear]] 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Evolution == |
|||
I reverted the removal of the fossil range, but the IP who removed it has now explained why on the talk page:<br> |
|||
"I deleted the part in Animalia about the dating of the Animalia Kingdom based upon evolutionary dating and techniques, because the last time I checked, a NPOV site doesn't have any affiliation with any beliefs, and that dating is inaccurate. There's an EvoWiki where that dating is acceptable; on Wikipedia I hoped I didn't have to deal with self-righteous stuck-up editors who wished as much as to impose their beliefs and dogmatic religion on us."<br> |
|||
I replied:<br> |
|||
"Thank you for providing an explanation. If you remove the dating from Animalia, though, it'll have to be removed from many other taxonomic groups, a controversial and time-consuming action. I suggest that you start a discussion about it at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]]."<br> |
|||
May others give their imput? --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="LightSeaGreen">[[Special:Contributions/Gray Porpoise|Porpo]]</font>[[Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cetaceans|<span style="color:#00FF00;">ise</span>]] 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:How does this editor know the date is inaccurate? We should be reporting what the scientific literature says on this. If there is disagreement among reliable sources as to the period during which animal fossils appear in the geological record, that should be discussed in the article, but that is no reason to throw out the fossil range. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I understand this. Others apparently don't, though. --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="LightSeaGreen">[[Special:Contributions/Gray Porpoise|Porpo]]</font>[[Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cetaceans|<span style="color:#00FF00;">ise</span>]] 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Animal Neurons== |
|||
I have created a page [[animals by number of neurons]], could we put a link on this page to that one? [[User:Paskari|Paskari]] 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== On Single Celled Animals == |
|||
The page currently does not address the fact that some single-celled organisms are classified as animals due to their probable descent from multicellular organisms (see [[myxozoa]]). --[[User:Savant13|Savant13]] 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== chaetognaths == |
|||
Recently someone moved the Chaetognatha back under the [[deuterostome]]s, where they'd been moved out of earlier. There are some resemblances between chaetognaths among deuterostomes, but recent studies support classifying them as early-branching [[protostome]]s or even basal [[bilateria]]ns. Some of this evidence is cited in the [[Chaetognatha]] article. |
|||
The best compromise for now may be to list the chaetognaths as bilaterians but not deuterostomes. The text of the [[Animal]] article now mentions the dispute about the chaetognaths' affinities. |
|||
[[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Phyla== |
|||
I have a book about the ocean, written just last year, that lists Pogonophora, Pterobranchia, Echiura, and Vestimentifera as their own phyla, yet we have them grouped under different phyla. This book is from the Smithsonian Institution, so, yeah, you can't get much more official than that. [[User:Belgium EO|Belgium EO]] 05:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, [[Echiura]] is treated as a phylum here, but indeed the others are not. Taxonomy is, contrary to popular belief, a matter of opinion. While some people may choose to treat a taxon at one rank, others may choose to treat it at another. There can never be an "official" treatment. Sadly, there are no references at [[Siboglinidae]] which we can check. It may be warranted to file a [[WP:RM|move request]], if the taxa are still most commonly treated by reputable works (including your Smithsonian book) as phyla. It may also be worth taking it to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life]], where someone may know something about the animals in question. --[[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]] 11:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:An example of the uncertainty in classification can be seen at the [http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/ Taxonomicon], which allows you look at the placement of 'clades' in various schemes. For instance, Pterobranchia is classified by most taxonomists as a class under Hemichordata, but it has also been classified as a subphylum by a couple of authorities. Pogonophora has been classified as a genus, a class, a subphylum, and a phylum by various authorities. Echiura is rather stable, as the authorities differ only between a subphylum or a phylum. Finally, Vestimentifera has been classified by various authorities as a class, an order and a phylum. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 04:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm! The only entries Taxonomicon has for Siboglinidae is as a family. Several Google hits agree with that. Our article may be based on [http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/2001-May/001781.html this]. More investigation is in order, but I need to go to bed. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::My understanding is that the first pogonophoran tube worms discovered were classified in the annelid family Siboglinidae. Later biologists separated them into the phylum Pogonophora. The giant tube worms from hot vents also belonged to that phylum, although some separted them into their own phylum, Vestimentifera. |
|||
::More recently, molecular phylogenies have shown them to belong among the annelids after all. This is the impetus behind restoring their original assignment as Sibloglinidae (which has the -idae suffix of a Linnaean family). This assignment may still be disputed, but I don't know of any studies that have refuted it. Maybe some workers recognize pogonophorans as annelid descendents but grant them a separate phylum because they look so different. The [http://www.tolweb.org/Annelida/2486 Tree of Life page about annelids] has a few words about the placement of this phylum/family. |
|||
::Regarding the Smithsonian Institution, there is an interesting connection. One of the authors of a morphological study that concludes that pogonophorans (siboglinids) are nested well within Annelida, Kristian Fauchald, is the curator of worms at the Smithsonian. So this book about the ocean may reflect a disagreement within the organization, or could be a popular work that's using a more traditional classification. |
|||
::[[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] 08:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I like TOLWeb and I like molecular (cladistic) phylogenies, but I'm not a trained biologist, and the morphological taxonomies have their supporters in WP, as well. While we can (and should) make clear the history and current status of a taxon's place in widely accepted classifications (giving due weight per [[WP:NPOV]]), the taxoboxes force us to choose one scheme over another. While I would like to see us use the latest molecular phylogenies in taxoboxes, they are subject to revision as new studies are performed and older studies are re-interpreted. |
|||
:::As for the Smithsonian book, I agree this is most likely a popular work, and as such will not be cited by biologists as an authority on the taxonomy of these worms. It does meet the requirements of [[WP:RS]], but there are many other reliable sources that support (with evidence and analysis) other classifications. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 13:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Animals as Parasites? == |
|||
Should all animals be defined as parasites, as, like their Opisthokonta relatives the fungi, they live off of other organisms? |
|||
:No. [[Parasite]] has a much more restricted technical definition. The word you are looking for is [[heterotroph]] which cuold be literally translated as "eating others". [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Largest kingdom == |
|||
Is the kingdom Animalia the largest kingdom of living things?--[[User:Crustaceanguy|Crustaceanguy]] 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:In terms of described species, [http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=581 yes], thanks to the arthropods. In terms of number of individuals, or total body mass, that would almost certainly be Bacteria. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you.--[[User:Crustaceanguy|Crustaceanguy]] 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[animal locomotion|Locomotion]]? == |
|||
I am quite sure that not all animals can generate locomotion. Look at the phylum [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sea_sponge Porifera]or sponges, they certianly cannot move. I know it says "in general". But I think this statement should be moved from the begining statement.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:67.142.130.34|67.142.130.34]] ([[User talk:67.142.130.34|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.142.130.34|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:But, see [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3404107&dopt=Abstract "Locomotion of sponges and its physical mechanism."] -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::All animals can move at some stage of their life cycle, including sponges. The article used to say that. --[[User:Savant13|Savant13]] 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== SIZE ERRORS REMAIN == |
|||
The article ANIMAL still has size errors. Nematomorpha and Acanthocephala are not microscopic.[[User:Zylon|Zylon]] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I created a new article called "Safari Cards." I'm sure some of you owned those in the 1970s, so please feel free to edit it. |
|||
==Ecdysozoa still a controversial clade== |
|||
It is worth noting that the Ecdysozoa clade is controversial, with little supporting fossil evidence, and molecular studies (mostly from insect and nematode genomes) continuing to almost evenly divide between support for the Ecdysozoa and for the alternative Coelomata, which would group arthropods with deuterostomes (the difficulty is that nematodes are fast-evolving, which molecular phylogenetics struggles with handling). <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ceolas|Ceolas]] ([[User talk:Ceolas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ceolas|contribs]]) 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
:Yes, all of that should be included. Are there any review papers which specifically address the relative frequency with which the two schemes are reported? --[[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]] 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Focus on Bilateria == |
|||
Why is there so much focus on the bilaterians in the section "groups of animals"? The four subsections should be moved to [[Bilateria]], right? [[User:Bendzh|Bendž]]|[[User talk:Bendzh|Ť]] 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe because 36 out of 41 or 42 phyla are bilaterians? -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 00:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I can see how this would lend itself to there being more ''articles'' on the Bilateria than Radiata, etc., but shouldn't this one focus on traits common to ''all'' animals? [[User:Bendzh|Bendž]]|[[User talk:Bendzh|Ť]] 12:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
OK, I was being a bit of a smart ass above. Let me think about it. Do you have any specific ideas for starters on how to revise the article? -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Most successful phyla? == |
|||
Why Mollusca and Annelida are the two most successful phyla? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zuxy|Zuxy]] ([[User talk:Zuxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zuxy|contribs]]) 19:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Animals WikiProject== |
|||
A few of us are interested in creating a subproject of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology|WikiProject Biology]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life|WikiProject Tree of life]] specifically focussed on animals. I thought I'd post here as well in case anyone is interested and has missed the proposal at the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life|WikiProject Tree of life talk page]]. I've created a very rough draft page to get structure and content sort out before the page 'goes live' [[User:Richard001/Animals draft|here]]. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Who said they were <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/143.226.26.86|143.226.26.86]] ([[User talk:143.226.26.86|talk]]) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Anybody watching this?== |
|||
Does anybody at all watch this article? The entire section 'groups of animals' has been gone for over ten days. Anybody who watches this article, and I hope there are some, is doing a rather poor job of it if they don't notice this. I've attempted to restore the material lost from an older version. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 02:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I just started watching it - hopefully you won't have to do that again. Cheers, [[User:Corvus coronoides|<font color="7D26CD">'''Corvus coronoides'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Corvus coronoides|<font color="000000">''talk''</font></sub>]] 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Seriously, was nobody watching it to start with? We have some serious problems if articles as important as this are unwatched. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I've had this article on my watchlist for over a year. However, I generally assume that vandalism is reverted correctly without checking to confirm. Unfortunately some vandal edits slipped through in this case. [[User:Mgiganteus1|Mgiganteus1]] 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Changed photo == |
|||
I changed the photo with a compilation of [[WP:FP|featured pictures]] of animals (a mixture of featured pictures at commons and Wikipedia). I think the new one is a lot more representative of different animal ranks than the previous, and the quality of the photos is much better (obviously, since they are all featured pictures). If anyone has comments about the change please let me know. '''[[User:Jhall1468|<font color="#0084C9">J. Hall</font>]]''' • <sup>([[User_Talk:Jhall1468|<font color=#004000>Talk</font>]])</sup> 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
That: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Animal_diversity_October_2007.jpg is a nice photo, but it does not really illustrate the diversity of animals as given in its title. It is all vertabrates (including 2 fish and 2 mammals), arthropods (including two insects) and a snail. A better photo for this purpose might would have at most 1 representative from any single class and include representatives from other phylums like a nematode, a rotifer, a coral and a starfish. [[User:KevinTernes|KevinTernes]] ([[User talk:KevinTernes|talk]]) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I've noted this in similar terms at [[commons:Image talk:Animal diversity October 2007.jpg]]. Unless a much more representative picture is made the old one is far better, so I have restored it for now. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] ([[User talk:Richard001|talk]]) 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Order of Presentation== |
|||
Why are deuterostomes placed directly after the sponges and coelocentrates/cnidaria? The last section of this article seems to proceed from complexity to simplicity, obfuscating the evolutionary sequence. All living thinga are current branches of the evolutionary tree, and thus in a sense equally evolved, but surely it makes sense to list animal phyla in order of their complexity, so as to foster comprehension of evolutionary sequence and make for ease of reference. I frankly suspect creationist meddling. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:70.116.21.216|70.116.21.216]] ([[User talk:70.116.21.216|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.116.21.216|contribs]]) 7:46, October 4, 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:That seems to be a big jump. Perhaps you should [[WP:GOOD|assume good faith]] in that they were listed as such because the person who added them didn't know the order of complexity. The article needs a LOT of work, but no sense in making accusations. '''[[User:Jhall1468|<font color="#0084C9">J. Hall</font>]]''' • <sup>([[User_Talk:Jhall1468|<font color=#004000>Talk</font>]])</sup> 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, I like the current order, with deuterostomes preceding protostomes. It's tempting to think of the deuterostomes as more complex because we mammals are among them. But are deuterostomes ''as such'' more complex than protostomes? Starfishes, acorn worms, and sea squirts don't seem inherently more complex than snails and shrimps. Complexity has evolved many times independently in the tree of life. |
|||
::My impression is that the classification lists less diverse branches before more diverse ones. Deuterostomes are arguably a side branch to the giant protostome radiation, which has borne far more species even in each of its major subgroups. [[User:Cephal-odd|Cephal-odd]] ([[User talk:Cephal-odd|talk]]) 08:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Porifera (sponges) as Metazoa or not? == |
|||
The initial definition of this article's subject synonymizes "animal" with "metazoan." But by many scientists' definitions, this term "Metazoa" excludes phyla such as sponges (which are then placed in Parazoa since they lack basic metazoan features such as tissues). Even the classification on the right sidebar of the page shows that Porifera is not considered part of Metazoa. Later in the article, images of sponges are shown, and sponges are brought in explicitly as subject matter to be included under Animalia, but typically as "exceptions" to rules set by the other animals, i.e., Metazoans. There seems to be some internal inconsistency here as to how to treat sponges in relation to Animalia/Metazoa. |
|||
I think the problem here is that this page has been set up to house both Animalia and Metazoa as synonyms. For many scientists, and for purposes of informational clarity, this synonymization simply doesn't work. For example, several statements in the article have to be qualified due to sponges not quite "making the grade" (pun intended). If this page did not synonymize Animalia with Metazoa, then such statements would no longer have to be phrased weakly as "exceptions" but could be more strongly stated in the form "the Animalia embraces both motile and non-motile species" (for example). |
|||
Therefore I believe this page should be for Animalia, explicitly including both Parazoa and Metazoa, and should be written as such, rather than from a Metazoan perspective. A separate page already exists for Parazoa, so why not give Metazoa its own page and make its definition explicit and phyletic rather than falsely synonymizing it with Animalia? If some editors object to the exclusion of sponges from Porifera, let's hear the reasons, whether biological or practical. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.204.5.240|76.204.5.240]] ([[User talk:76.204.5.240|talk]]) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* The latest word is that [[Sponges]]/Parazoa fall '''within''' the Metazoa. (Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolutionos of the animal tree of life. Casey Dunn, et. al., Nature, Vol.452, pp. 745-749) What this article says is that the animal tree looks like this: |
|||
|---------- Bilaterians (all other animals) |
|||
| |
|||
______| |---- Cnidaria (Jellyfish) |
|||
| |_____| |
|||
| | |
|||
| |---- Porifera (Sponges) [Parazoa] |
|||
Metazoa---| |
|||
| |
|||
|------ Ctenophora (Comb jellyfish) |
|||
Thus your concern has been made moot by the most recent research results. Parazoa falls deep within Animals/Metazoa. |
|||
[[User:Nwbeeson|Nick Beeson]] ([[User talk:Nwbeeson|talk]]) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== "The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animal" == |
|||
Do we really need this? --[[User:Henry W. Schmitt|Henry W. Schmitt]] ([[User talk:Henry W. Schmitt|talk]]) 08:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Presumably some readers want to know the origin of a word. The question of whether we should mention the origin of words in Wikipedia, or just rely on Wiktionary to supply that information, is a general one best addressed at a higher level ([[Wikipedia:Village pump]], perhaps). -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 13:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I think we should add the fact that "The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animal" because many other articles on wikipedia describe the origin of words that the article concerns for instance the article on [[Anarchism]] says that the word [[Anarchism]] is derived from the Greek words a-without and archons-rulers and the article on [[Atheism#Etymology|Atheism]] states that the word English word atheism is derived from the French word athéisme which was in turn derived from the Greek word ἄθεος.--[[User:Fang 23|Fang 23]] ([[User talk:Fang 23|talk]]) 13:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I thought it came from ''anima'' not ''animal''. [[User:St jimmy|<font color="Red" style="font-size: 8pt" face="arial">'''<font style="font-size: 10pt" color="black">S</font>t. <font style="font-size: 10pt" color="black">J</font>immy'''</font>]] 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Surely the correct way to express it is along the lines of... |
|||
"The word 'animal' is Latin in origin", or "the word 'animal' is taken from Latin" <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.132.202.24|86.132.202.24]] ([[User talk:86.132.202.24|talk]]) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Given the Latin word is "animale" or "animalis" (gender neutral) the article was wrong anyway. It's fixed and cited so it shouldn't be an issue. '''[[User:Justin|<font color="#0084C9">Justin</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_Talk:Justin|<font color=#808080>chat</font>]]</sup> 21:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The word animal is from the Latin "animal." The nominative singular of the Latin word has the same spelling as in English. Please fix or delete the etymology altogether. [[User:Schaffman|Schaffman]] ([[User talk:Schaffman|talk]]) 12:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Clarification of phrasing required == |
|||
Under |
|||
Deuterostomes |
|||
It says: |
|||
Deuterostomes differ from the other Bilateria, called protostomes, |
|||
in several ways. In both cases there is a complete digestive tract. |
|||
However, in protostomes the initial opening (the archenteron) |
|||
develops into the mouth, and an anus forms separately. |
|||
In deuterostomes this is reversed. |
|||
Whilst the last sentence conjours up all sorts of amusing images (e.g. the initial opening (of the digestive tract) developes into the anus), a better way of phrasing than 'this is reversed' (in which it is not at all clear which of several possibilities 'this' refers to) ought to be found. Alternatively, omit this sentence completely, since the subsequent description renders it superfluou |
|||
what's this abbout lol |
|||
== Article Section Suggestion for, "The Section: 'Relationship to humans?'" == |
|||
Although humans themselves are within the kingdom of Animalia, I believe it would be a good idea to write a section in this article on how animals affect human culture, diet, and life in general (as well as anything else that's relevant to the subject). |
|||
[[User:Soporaeternus|Soporaeternus]] ([[User talk:Soporaeternus|talk]]) 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Shouldn't that be how humans use or otherwise deal with animals? I suspect that the topic is far to large and diffuse for this article. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Human-animal interaction is called [[Anthrozoology]], and it's a massive topic in of itself, so I'd agree with Donald here. I'd say the first step, if this is an interest to editors, would be improving [[Anthrozoology]] so that content from it can be used within this article. '''[[User:Justin|<font color="#0084C9">Justin</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_Talk:Justin|<font color=#808080>chat</font>]]</sup> 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== "Usually multicellular" == |
|||
I have to take issue with this. [[Myxozoa]]ns are unicellular but their spores are multicellular and have cell junctions. The way I read the article, it seems to infer that Myxozoans are unicellular which is oversimplification at best and wrong at worst. All of the sources I've found state that animals are multicellular. Before I change it, I'm curious if anyone has a source that indicates the opposite (or even a source that states Myxozoans are unicellular. '''[[User:Justin|<font color="#0084C9">Justin</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_Talk:Justin|<font color=#808080>chat</font>]]</sup> 07:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:And it says in Wikipedia (so it must be true) that [[Buddenbrockia plumatellae]] is a multi-cellular myxozoan. Perhaps making the change with a footnote that most myxozoans are singular-celled during part of their life-cycle would be sufficient. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 13:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
the ultimate resoure of this is s.sanjay kumar son of p.k.shivakumar <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.193.161.96|117.193.161.96]] ([[User talk:117.193.161.96|talk]]) 09:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
animals are great <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.175.3.64|58.175.3.64]] ([[User talk:58.175.3.64|talk]]) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Picture of Human== |
|||
Shouldnt there be a picture of a human being in the main pic? [[User:Terrasidius|Terrasidius]] ([[User talk:Terrasidius|talk]]) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Ctenophoa basal? == |
|||
I added a blurb from the phylogenomic study publish in the March 05 Nature. Surprised there was nothing here after a month. If someone can duplicate the tree they came up with, that would be a nice addition. |
|||
== Animals == |
|||
They lay eggs and other things. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.88.82.216|219.88.82.216]] ([[User talk:219.88.82.216|talk]]) 07:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
animal have teeth |
|||
Most of them do. [[User:WadeSimMiser|WadeSimMiser]] ([[User talk:WadeSimMiser|talk]]) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I WUT TO GIT LON IN <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.153.175.196|70.153.175.196]] ([[User talk:70.153.175.196|talk]]) 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I think the bug shouldn't be one of the first things you see. Bugs don't count. I vote for a bunny. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WildBeggar|WildBeggar]] ([[User talk:WildBeggar|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WildBeggar|contribs]]) 04:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Quote == |
|||
I would like to add a quote to the top of the page. This is it. [[User:DarkLordofSith|DarkLordofSith]] ([[User talk:DarkLordofSith|talk]]) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
"We should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something natural and something beautiful." |
|||
-Aristotle |
|||
:Why? I see that you added that quote to [[:Biology]] without discussion, and it was promptly reverted. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and the article is about Animals. WP has a sister project [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiQuote], for collections of quotes. The above quote might even be pertinent in an article about human attitudes towards animals, but I don't see a place for it in this article. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== vandalism == |
|||
someone replaced the article with some gibberish. i changed it back. [[User:Gigakight|Gigakight]] ([[User talk:Gigakight|talk]]) 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Contradictory descriptions as second largest phylum == |
|||
Both Nematoda (roundworms; in Ecdysozoa) and Mollusca (mollusks; in Lophotrochozoa) are described as the "second-largest animal phylum" (with or without the hyphen). Could someone with access to the references clarify this? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/96.245.212.151|96.245.212.151]] ([[User talk:96.245.212.151|talk]]) 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Another question: are all of the entries in the main infobox at the top right, starting with "Superphylum Ecdysozoa", indented one level too many? The previous Superphylum, Deuterostomia, seems to be one level higher (outward). [[Special:Contributions/96.245.212.151|96.245.212.151]] ([[User talk:96.245.212.151|talk]]) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== New external link == |
|||
I'm new to Wiki so apologies if I've added this message incorrectly. |
|||
If possible, we would like to add an external link to a-z-animals.com. We are developing an encyclopedia of animals which can be updated and contributed to by visitors - a similar idea to Wiki but the site is specifically about animals and the site is targeted towards children. I feel the link would be a great addition to this article since this article would be very confusing to a child. |
|||
I understand that Wiki is not a place for endless links but I hope you will see we are trying to create a quality resource which will be of interest to this article's visitors. |
|||
Thanks for your time! |
|||
[[User:Neilskirrow|Neilskirrow]] ([[User talk:Neilskirrow|talk]]) 05:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi, Neil. The reason your link may not be included is because WP discourages linking to other wikis. Moreover, children confused by this article would be encouraged to visit the Simple English WP article Animal. [[User:Carl.bunderson|Carl.bunderson]] ([[User talk:Carl.bunderson|talk]]) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Etymology?== |
|||
How about do an etymology for 'animal'? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.174.82.195|24.174.82.195]] ([[User talk:24.174.82.195|talk]]) 08:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Bad article == |
|||
This is a bad article. One needs a degree in Biology and one in Latin to read it. I just want to know in English where various animals fit in the classification. There is a picture of a tiger ther in the box. Where do tigers fit in?--[[Special:Contributions/58.165.128.120|58.165.128.120]] ([[User talk:58.165.128.120|talk]]) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You have a point, to some degree. I am no biologist. How many people search "animal" when they want to know where a tiger fits in. Why not just go to [[tiger]]? You are right in that some parts are incomprehensible to non-experts. But it is simply too inconvenient to label each family, genus, order, etc., with a brief definition (i.e.: [[mustilidae]]: otters, weasels, badgers, and...). I think.--[[Special:Contributions/76.16.75.236|76.16.75.236]] ([[User talk:76.16.75.236|talk]]) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::One problem is that there are a lot of technical terms that could just as easily be replaced with layman's terms, and they're all wikilinked rather than followed by a brief layman's definition. Nobody should be expected to read another article every three words in order to understand the text. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] ([[User talk:Dinoguy2|talk]]) 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I don't understand why this article is so incomplete. There are over 35 phylium in Kingdom Animalia. This article does not even mention the most common phylium, Phylum Chordata and it's subphylum Vertebrata. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.36.143.211|24.36.143.211]] ([[User talk:24.36.143.211|talk]]) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Earliest animals pushed back to the Cryogenian (635 MYA) == |
|||
Love ''et al'' (2009) "Fossil steroids record the appearance of Demospongiae during the Cryogenian period" ''Nature'' '''457''', 718-721 {{doi|10.1038/nature07673}} [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== species are not proper nouns == |
|||
A dog is a common noun. Lassie is a proper noun. Do not capitalize common nouns. Yes, even when you are interested in discussing the class. The only common noun animal names that should be capitalized are those that derive from proper nouns: "Virginia creeper" for instance. This is the norm for the written language. Is Chicago, AP, NYT, Britanica etc. style. It is right out of normal textbooks. Wikipedia is forwarding a peculiar usage driven by select groups, not yet accepted in general writing. English is not GERMAN! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.82.57.163|72.82.57.163]] ([[User talk:72.82.57.163|talk]]) 13:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Revision as of 16:25, 31 March 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |