Talk:Berghia coerulescens

Gastropods Low‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Misleading reference and unreferenced text used in versions of this article prior to March 13th, 2011

In previous versions up to this one, there were the following problems with the verification of the text:

Misleading reference

The only reference used in those verisions was to a scientific paper published in PLoS ONE: The “Island Rule” and Deep-Sea Gastropods: Re-Examining the Evidence. This article deals with the Island Rule established for mammals and tries to validate that rule in a different group, gastropods:

"It has recently been suggested that an analogous pattern [to the Island Rule] holds for the colonisation of the deep-sea benthos by marine Gastropoda. In particular, a pioneering study showed that gastropods from the Western Atlantic showed the same graded trend from dwarfism to gigantism that is evident in island endemic mammals. However, subsequent to the publication of the gastropod study, the standard tests of the island rule have been shown to yield false positives at a very high rate, leaving the result open to doubt".

Then, I removed this reference from the article on B. coerulescens for the following reasons:

Not specific: in no place of the paper is there ANY reference to B. coerulescens. In fact, no species nor genus of the group Gastropoda is specified in the text or in the figures or their captions. The group Gastropoda is treated as a whole.
Topic not relevant: The scientific paper deals with the Island Rule, which has not even an indirect use in this article on B. coerulescens.
Inconsistent results: Even in what is dealing with, the scientific paper does not yield positive results ("However, subsequent to the publication of the gastropod study, the standard tests of the island rule have been shown to yield false positives at a very high rate, leaving the result open to doubt.")

All the text based on this invalid, misleading reference, was removed unless it could be properly verified.

Unverified claims temporarily removed

The following claims were removed because they were unverified:

"Distribution of Berghia coerulescens is more frequent due to its habitual feeding of the pestly apistasia."

Please, provide a valid biogeographic reference for this claim about the distribution of B. coerulescens.

"As of now it is not in danger, but this species does have a relatively short life cycle."

Please, provide a valid reference for the "not endangered" (or any other) state of B. coerulescens and also for the "short life cycle". Besides, "short" with respect to what? Other Berghia sp.? Human life? The age of the Universe?. It would be much sensible to just provide the length of their lives, if properly referenced.

Claim included, though not properly verified

"Berghia coerulescens is the type species of the genus Berghia."

I could not verify this claim, but given that as it can be seen in this Berghia classification, B. coerulescens is the first species identified within the genus Berghia, so it is very likely that it is also the type species for that genus. I included the text but put a "Citation needed" tag on it.

Pmronchi (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the table S1 in the reference. Thanks for two other notes. --Snek01 (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berghia coerulescens. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707075105/http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/anemonecare/a/aa100798_2.htm to http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/anemonecare/a/aa100798_2.htm

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) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]