Talk:Scyphozoa

Animals High‑importance

Scyphozoa 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

High

This article has been rated as High-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

It is a contentious view that the fossils of the Ediacaran assemblages are jellyfish.

Merge with Jellyfish discussion

The jellyfish article should be rewritten to emphasize the popular usage of the word and to discuss the idea that sometimes the term "true jellyfish" is use to refer to Scyphozoans.

Most details about Scyphozoa should be removed from the jellyfish article and placed in the Scyphozoa article.

In my opinion, Wikipedia should standardize on the scientific names as the titles for plant and animal articles. When, as in the case of the name, jellyfish, there is widespread popular usage of a name a brief article is justified which summarizes the common usage of the word and provides links to and brief descriptions of the specific things that the word can mean. As it is now, the Jellyfish article is confusing. It deals at times with the common usage of the word jellyfish and then goes into detail about a particular usage of the word, "true jellyfish".Davefoc (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is also under Jellyfish talk page. That article repeatedly (and correctly) states that the term 'jellyfish' refers to more than the Scyphozoa. The flag was inappropriately added, and moreover the person who placed it did not provide a unified place for discussion. Therefore, I will remove the flag. Articles can and should be improved through the usual process. Comments about Jellyfish article should go on its talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than a year ago when I first started making edits in Wikipedia, I made modifications to the already fairly-mature Jellyfish page that indicate that jellyfish are more than just Scyphozoa, as statements on the Jellyfish page referred also to non-Scyphozoan medusae in some cases. While I think you were right to revive this Scyphozoa page, the Jellyfish page would need a lot of work to clarify the complicated various groups and life cycles that all count as "jellyfish". That page isn't really very good as it presently stands and it will take a lot of work to fix it up and I don't have the energy right now to go from what's already there to what should be there - have already spent many many hours making small changes. I just don't appreciate when my carefully thought-out expert sentences in that article go away, but that's the Wikipedia thing.

I really would like to get the term "true jellyfish" out of the lexicon, as it is used primarily in textbooks written by authors who don't know the group well. I don't see that it serves any useful purpose at all. Seeing as "jellyfish" is a common name, modifying it to "true jellyfish" for a subgroup leads one to wonder if the rest are false jellyfish"? ... which they are not. Leuckartiara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like "true jellyfish" is only used in the first sentence to identify an alternate name for the group. Even if it's not an ideal phrase, the fact that it's used in textbooks makes it likely that some readers will need the clarification. --Danger (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ediacaran

Here's a possible citation for evidence of Scyphozoa as early as the Ediacaran:

Because they are soft-bodied, scyphozoans only rarely fossilize. Many exceptional Lagerstätten (see Chapter 1), such as the Vendian Ediacara localities of Australia, the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia, the Pennsylvanian Mazon Creek nodules of eastern Illinois, and the Jurassic Posidonienschiefer and Solnhofen Limestone of Germany, preserve extraordinary specimens, but otherwise scyphozoan fossils are rare.

Prothero: Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, 2nd edition. Page 224. McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Scyphozoa

About scyphozoa 110.235.224.164 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to fix misspelling

After I tried to correct "cauliflour" to the spelling "cauliflower", the software no longer recognizes the image (that had been called "cauliflour jellyfish"). 2601:204:F181:9410:159D:D0F5:D682:6317 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]