Jump to content

Talk:Riftia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Annelids?

[edit]

Annelids? Has anyone since 1960s seriously thought these were annelids? Their embryology is clearly that of Deuterostomia, AFAIK, so they cannot be protostomes like annelids. Can anyone sort this out?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.66.39 (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2007

See Talk:Siboglinidae. Kingdon 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early researchers believed that pogonophorans were deuterostomes; however, the protostome condition of these worms became clear with the discovery of the segmented posterior end of the worms and after studies of their embryology "Craig M. Nature 381, 514 - 516 (1996)". 118.138.220.165 (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

300 years old

[edit]

I've heard they live for over 300 years growing a quarter of an inch a year. Can anyone find a source for this?--Wowaconia 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000203075002.htm

Backwards

[edit]

The article says that they evolved this way because they live so deep. Isn't it more likely they live so deep because they evolved that way? Obviously they'd have to become extremophilic before they could survive in that environment, and considering which one is the faster process... Not that I believe in such things, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The cryptic irony of this colleague (64.122.63.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)) would, i suppose, be irrelevant if the article had said something like they describe, at the time they made this contribution. It didn't, and doesn't, so the above is effectively nonsense. (Perhaps their complaints are about one of the referenced sources, rather than "[t]he article" as stated.) I am striking thru the 17:07, 2 April 2008 contrib on this talk page. If someone can find something that makes it relevant here, please revert my strike-out markup, and explain the struck-out material to the rest of us.
    --Jerzy•t 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order Correction (Pogonophora --> Canalipalpata)

[edit]

I have altered the original order classification of Pogonophora (described by Wikipedia's own disambiguation page as obsolete) with Canalipalpata. This is consistent with Wikipedia's classification of the Siboglinidae family, which I confirmed independently in the literature:

Jennings, Robert M. & Kenneth M. Halanych (2005). "Genomes of Clymenella torquata (Maldanidae) and Riftia pachyptila (Siboglinidae): Evidence for Conserved Gene Order in Annelida". Molecular Biology and Evolution 22 (2): 210–222. doi:10.1093/molbev/msi008. ("R. pachyptila is in Siboglinidae within Canalipalpata.")

Eunomiac (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What Jennings & Halanynch said, under the main heading "Methods" and the sub-head "Organisms", was in context
Clymenella torquata and Riftia pachyptila were chosen to obtain better representation of annelid diversity than is currently available for mitochondrial genomes. C. torquata is in Maldanidae within Scolecida and R. pachyptila is in Siboglinidae within Canalipalpata.
so a source accepted as a better than average professional authority on the subject would be far better. In fact, they were, already when cited in the accompanying article, outdated by several years by the source cited in Annelid#Family tree. (I can't tell whether the research Jennings describes might not have contributed to the "[conclusion] that the classification of polychaetes into Scolecida, Canalipalpata and Aciculata was useless". They seem to have hoped to show that the annelids have low genetic diversity, by measuring a low genetic difference between these two species, but the eventual interpretation of their results may instead be that the species are more closely related than the number of branchings separating their (2004) classifications suggested.)
In any case, both Canalipalpata and Pogonophora should be mentioned, since readers don't immediately abandon obsolete terminology, let alone stop consulting works that use it.
Let's also add a source that is up to date, and supports the current classification -- whatever that turns out to be -- in a more compelling context than a research design that apparently misunderstood which species belong in the same order.
--Jerzy•t 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated?

[edit]

I stripped this out of what is now Tube worm (body plan):

It may also refer to the bright red worms found living at the bottom of the ocean near active sulfur vents. These worms live in huge colonies clumped together around the hydrothermal vents.

If i don't get around to checking that all of it duplicates the accompanying article, could someone do so, and note below that it's done, or unsuitable?
--Jerzy•t 04:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant tube worm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant tube worm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant tube worm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How old are they?

[edit]

Taking in account that earth is 4.5 billion years old and the hydrothermal underwater vents won't be far just say 4 billion years old, is it possible that these worms and other species living in this environment are about 4 billion years old as well? Which could possible make it the oldest living life form in the world? 206.83.103.20 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riftia&oldid=1194973236"