Talk:Dendrogramma

Animals Mid‑importance

Dendrogramma is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Marine life (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Comment

There are methods for getting some sequencing information out from specimens that have been preserved in formalin. Apparently the researchers and reviewers were unaware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.151.47 (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote orgy

Wikipedia reports consensus, not opinion, so please get rid of all the quotes from various scientists and generate some sentences that reflect the scientific consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's only just been published, it seems most unlikely that there will be a "consensus" right now. People are reacting to and assessing the discovery. That's what the "Reactions" section is all about. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a (raw) consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia film

Will one naming reflect the creatures from the Fantasia film? 194.80.134.138 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between that film (the mushroom dancers i assume) and these creatures, according to any and all sources. as with their resembling mushrooms, sheer coincidence, not even convergent evolution as the functionality of the similar forms is not related at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publication

From "Discovery", paragraph 2: "It was not until 2014 that they were able to publish the discovery." Were they really "not ... able to publish the discovery" until 2014? The reference does not seem to imply that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Edited. "It was not until 2014 that they published the discovery". So they took a long time, and the long time is commented on, but "were not able" to publish faster is unsubstantiated, probably untrue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Technically, shouldn't this page be redirected to Dendrogrammatidae? This is how it's done in all other species on wikipedia that are the sole representatives of a family. Mattximus (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The naming standard says that we should use the most common name, which would be Dendrogramma. This topic is too new for the family name to be considered stable as yet. Perhaps a phylum name will appear which we could the use, ( or maybe it will end up being Trilobozoa). There are two known species anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect system is in accordance with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA: monotypic taxa should redirect to the lowest ranked taxon, generally no lower than genus. Dendrogrammatidae is a monogeneric taxon. While Dendrogramma has two species, all knowledge of individual species currently stems from a single paper, and no living animals have been described, so it is prudent for the time being to discuss them in both in one article, to give a single, comprehensive article rather than a series of stubs that require jumping between articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dendrogramma enigmatica sp. nov., holotype.png to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dendrogramma enigmatica sp. nov., holotype.png will be appearing as picture of the day on October 24, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-10-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Dendrogramma is a monotypic genus of siphonophore identified in 2014 from a collection of specimens gathered in 1986. Although specimens were at first identified as two species, D. enigmatica and D. discoides, these were later shown to represent varieties of a single species. When Dendrogramma was first discovered, it was speculated that the genus could not be classified into any existing phylum. However, examination of RNA material identified it as a siphonophore in 2016. The specimens are presumed to represent parts (bracts) of a larger organism whose entire morphology is unknown.

This diagram, depicting the holotype, was included in the article which first described Dendrogramma.Photograph: Jean Just, Reinhardt Møbjerg Kristensen, and Jørgen Olesen

Archive – More featured pictures...

Clarification of "bract"

Would it be appropriate to link this article's term "bract" to article Bract? Are they the same thing? The Bract page refers only to the terms use in botany.
Christopher Ursich (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's related. What would be best is for the bract article to be expanded to include the animal use, and then to link to it! Bondegezou (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll request that there.
Christopher Ursich (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]