Jump to content

Talk:Terrestrial animal

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

Please expand

[edit]

An article was needed discussing terrestrial animals, because dozens of biology articles refer to them. I copied the basic part of this page from Amphibian, but Arboreal is a nice simple model that could be referred to. --Iggle 05:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-terrestrial

[edit]

Thanks. I still could do with an explanation of what classifies as 'semi-terrestrial' however :) --62.45.37.252 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

A vandal removed the table quite some time ago. I restored it.

Nick Beeson (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

[edit]

Arthopods can be terrestial and not all terrestial animals descended from them. Also the single celled organism thing seemed out of place because this is for all animals, so I deleted it both. 193.141.155.146 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.155.146 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saxicolous, Arenicolous, etc

[edit]

I commented here 05 Sept without a response, so I've include the terms Saxicolous, which are rock dwelling creatures (Latin saxum rock). There may be other terms to consider too such as arenicolous (lives in sand). I'm not sure if birds and troglodytes (as applied to animals) are also considered terrestrial.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

epifaunal

[edit]

I removed "the epifaunal" from the first paragraph of the "Taxonomy" section, because at the linked site it says, "epifauna are aquatic animals that live on the bottom." The sentence in question used to read, "...representatives of more successful groups of the epifaunal terrestrial life." But that last phrase makes no sense as written. What, "the aquatic animals that live on the bottom" are "...representatives of more successful groups of terrestrial life"? Nick Beeson (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add: "...ages of the earliest fossil millipede-bearing sediments and their significance"

[edit]

Could you please update the page to contain information on this study, included like so in 2020 in science:

Researchers report to have identified the world's oldest arthropod and oldest land-animal living persistently on land: the Myriapod millipede-ancestor Kampecaris obanensis, dating back 425 million years to the Silurian period. According to the study the 2.5 cm specimen found in Scotland in 1899 adds evidence for a rapid co-evolution of bugs and plants from lake-communities to complex forest ecosystems in just 40 million years.[1][2][3][4]

I think it should be mentioned here shortly under section "Terrestrialization". Maybe it would be more or also relevant to add it to Arthropod#Fossil record. If you see a problem with the item's content or notability for 2020 in science please edit it.

Thank you.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "World's oldest bug is fossil millipede from Scotland". phys.org. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  2. ^ "Scottish millipede fossil found to be world's oldest known bug". New Atlas. 1 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  3. ^ Cassella, Carly. "This May Have Been Earth's First-Ever Land Animal". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  4. ^ Brookfield, M. E.; Catlos, E. J.; Suarez, S. E. (13 May 2020). "Myriapod divergence times differ between molecular clock and fossil evidence: U/Pb zircon ages of the earliest fossil millipede-bearing sediments and their significance". Historical Biology. 0 (0): 1–5. doi:10.1080/08912963.2020.1761351.

Can we change the article image?

[edit]

I don't know what would be appropriate but any chance we could change it to something other than 2 flies mating with each other?

Shinji257 (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

section Geoplankton

[edit]

The entirety of the text in subsection Plankton#Geoplankton is highly similar (almost identical) to the entirety of the text of its “see also” target, Terrestrial animal#Geoplankton (redirected from Geoplankton).

The topic could potentially one day be its own article, but for now, I think it’s probably a good idea to keep the blurb on geoplankton in one of the two places where it’s currently found, and make the other place where it’s currently found a section transclusion.

Thoughts? Mifield 05:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss this topic over at Talk:Plankton#subsection Geoplankton, and not here. Thank you! Mifield 05:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]