Jump to content

Talk:Bryozoa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ectoprocta)
Good articleBryozoa has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 1, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Picture

[edit]

Can we get a picture of a living one? -FZ 01:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just tried to post a video of a live one, but it got denied because of the nazi mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy help request

[edit]

Could we have a taxobox on this? I'd do it myself if I knew the slightest thing about the topic. Soo 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous System

[edit]

I understand that bryozoa have a simple nervous system. Can somebody include brief information on it? Jyoshimi 00:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Bryozoa fresh water types grow in golf course irrigation systems

[edit]

I have been told that our irrigation system on our golf course has the Bryozoa organism growing in it and they are flushing it with some type of fungicide. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.125.239 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ectoprocta into Bryozoa

[edit]

I propose that Ectoprocta simply be made a redirect to Bryozoa. The terms are generally synonymous today, and the Bryozoa article already includes a paragraph describing Endoprocts and their former placement within Bryozoa. This isn't really a question of which term is better, but whether it is better to have one article or two. Kingdon 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this. Kingdon 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources & notes

[edit]

Hopefully useful for getting this to GA --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]
  • The Phylum Ectoprocta (Bryozoa) - very probably not WP:RS, but useful checklist of points, incl. specialisation.
  • What is a Bryozoan? - nice dgms
  • Bryozoans - excellent dgm of encrusting species, get Graphics Lab on this.
  • The Fossil Book - how to distinguish from corals; dgm of fossil; hard parts not exposed
  • Nielsen, Claus (2001). "Bryozoa (Ectoprocta: 'Moss' Animals)". Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1038/npg.els.0001613. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen; 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology, 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685)

Classification

[edit]

Feeding

[edit]

Reproduction & life cycle

[edit]

Ecology

[edit]

And humans

[edit]

Fossil record

[edit]

Phylogeny

[edit]

Images

[edit]

Vandalism

[edit]

"[edit] Interaction with humans
Bryozoa
Bryozoa generally do not interact with humans as something of a rule. This is due to a longstanding feud with humans after an incident in 1922 when a colony of Bryozoa were involved in a scuffle with an unknown man over a disagreement regarding coleslaw. Charles McRogersonstone - a member of the colony - was quoted after the incident as saying It was truly awful. I had no idea that soggy carrot could inflict such damage. "

Removing this bullshit because it reeks of vandailsm to me. Sorry for my non wikipedian style of informing you of this, I'm new to the concept of spreading knowledge in a positive manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Ectoprocta

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale:

  • The contents of "Bryozoa" have fluctuated ever since the discovery of the Entoprocta (another phylum with a similar feeding structure) in the mid-19th cent, and the debate continues. So "Bryozoa" is ambiguous,as it could refer to Ectoprocta+Entoprocta or to Ectoprocta alone.
  • Nevertheless "Bryozoa" has been synonymous with "Ectoprocta" in most literature since 1869, both neoontological and paleontological, including 101-level textbooks. Thus readers will generally be more familiar with "Bryozoa" than with "Ectoprocta" (or "Entoprocta", which seems to have received even less study). The scope for confusing readers is huge.
  • Since the debate continues, the safest course is to use the unambiguous although confusingly similar "Ectoprocta" and "Entoprocta" for the main articles. This is in line with ITIS, which treats "Ectoprocta" as the valid name and "Bryozoa" as "invalid - junior synonym"
  • Simply redirecting Bryozoa to Ectoprocta would be misleading, as it would not warn readers of the potential for confusion. Hence I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a "health warning" for readers.
  • Bryozoa can then be modified in either direction if the debate is actually resolved and ITIS concurs. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Per ratioale. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

Discuss

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bryozoa vs. Ectoprocta

[edit]

(I posted this on the "move" discussion page. I'm not sure it will be seen there, so I've repeated it here.)

This move catches me by surprise. I should have been reading the discussions. Are the editors here aware that taxonomic priority rules are not relevant to phyla? Here is a very recent quotation on the issue by bryozoologists --

Other phylum names that have been used for the Bryozoa are Polyzoa and Ectoprocta. Polyzoa (Greek for ‘many animals’, referring to their colonies of a few to millions of individuals) was once commonly used for the phylum in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. English naturalist J. V. Thompson invented the name in 1830, a year earlier than German scientist Gottfried Ehrenberg introduced Bryozoa, but rules of priority do not apply to higher taxa. Majority usage of the name Bryozoa in Europe and America, plus the birth of the International Bryozoology Association in Stockholm in 1965, have fixed Bryozoa as the ‘official’ phylum name among bryozoologists. (Gordon, Taylor and Bigey, 2009; New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity, Volume One: Kingdom Animalia, p. 271)

I work on fossil bryozoans and can assure you that in universities, museums and research labs around the world "Bryozoa" is the accepted phylum name. This move to "Ectoprocta" seems to me to confuse the public, especially students using Wikipedia as a resource. Wilson44691 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got into zoology articles via my interest in paleontology (arm-chair), so I sympathise. However as a paleontologist you're mainly dealing hard parts, and there are no known mineralised entoprocta, so for paleontologists "Bryozoa" can only mean Ectoprocta. Neontologists face a more complicated situation. The main problems with "Bryozoa" are whether the term includes Entoprocta - an old idea but resurrected by a molecular phylogeny study in 2009. I prefer "Ectoprocta" for now rto denote the critters with cystids and polypides - if mol phylo supports "Bryozoa = Ectoprocta + Entoprocta" 5 years from now, then Bryozoa can be developed to support the combination; if not, we can always redirect Bryozoa to Ectoprocta. --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are the same for paleontologists and neontologists when it comes to taxonomy and systematics, and our standards are the same. I'm as much a zoologist as a paleontologist when it comes to some groups, including bryozoans. There are no separate naming conventions for paleontologists and neontologists. I belong to the International Bryozoology Association, for example, virtually all the members of which (if not all of them) consider "Phylum Bryozoa" to be the proper and "official" name (as in the quotation above). (There are fossil entoprocts[1], by the way.) Here are the relevant sections from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)[2]:
23.2. Purpose. In accordance with the objects of the Code (see Preamble), the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and it is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning by the introduction of a name that is its senior synonym or homonym (for certain such cases see Article 23.9), or through an action taken following the discovery of a prior and hitherto unrecognized nomenclatural act (such as a prior type fixation; for such cases see Articles 70.2 and 75.6).
23.3. Application to Synonymy. The Principle of Priority requires that a taxon formed by bringing together into a single taxon at one rank two or more previously established nominal taxa within the family group, genus group or species group takes as its valid name the name determined in accordance with the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.1] and its Purpose [Art. 23.2], with change of suffix if required in the case of a family-group name [Art. 34]. (Boldface is mine.)
It is simply incorrect by taxonomic principles and the overwhelming conventions of invertebrate biologists to subordinate "Bryozoa" to Ectoprocta". I suggest the move be reversed and the bryozoan page be returned to its proper title. I request this with respect knowing how much good work you have put into this article, but the group is the Phylum Bryozoa and the article should be titled appropriately. Wilson44691 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, although the main article was moved as per the proposal above, the second part of the proposal -- that "I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a 'health warning' for readers" -- has not been done; instead, Bryozoa is a disambiguation page that is likely to leave most readers extremely confused, since it doesn't indicate which group is commonly known as "Bryozoa." Furthermore, there are some 300 articles that contain links to Bryozoa that now need to be reviewed individually to determine which group they meant to refer to (and I suspect that, in a large percentage of cases, this will be almost impossible to ascertain). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around before proposing the move and found the situation is messy and currently looks unstable. While many authors use "Bryozoa" to mean ectoprocts, others add an explanatory "(Ectoprocta)" after "Bryozoa" and some recent analyses group ectoprocts and entoprocts under "Bryozoa". In addition some authors prefer "Kamptozoa" to "Entoprocta", presumably to avoid confusion with "Entoprocta". Some examples:
In addition authors that prefer "Kamptozoa" to "Entoprocta" include Ruppert, E.E., Fox, R.S., and Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Kamptozoa and Cycliophora". Invertebrate Zoology (7 ed.). Brooks/Cole. p. 808-812. ISBN 0030259827.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), and all writings by Kerstin Wasson, who appears to be the most prolific researcher on this phylum (see citations at Entoprocta).
I have not yet made the article Bryozoa an explanation of the difficulties because the move of Bryozoa to Ectoprocta was done yesterday and Wilson44691 immediately expressed concerns. When we reach a consensus, I can easily make Bryozoa "a 'health warning' for readers" based on material currently in Ectoprocta.
Depending on the conclusion, I agree that linked articles may have to be changed. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This item should be removed from consideration here: 'The ITIS entry for "Bryozoa" says "invalid - junior synonym" and that the valid name is "Ectoprocta".' ITIS is simply wrong according to the ICZN as cited above. Priority is not an issue for the names of phyla. As for the "instability", such is the nature of scientific research and discourse, especially in systematics. It is crucial that we use a taxonomic language which is consistent and universal -- this is what the ICZN is all about, and it has a long history. "Phylum Bryozoa" is the name accepted by those who study these remarkable animals. This, like anything else in science, may change in the future, but right now the consensus is for "Bryozoa". Wikipedia should reflect that consensus, especially in the title of the article. The issue can be discussed in the article, of course, but the proper title is critical. Please start the process for reversing this move. Wilson44691 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone the previous move as it seems to be contentious and was aparantly only supported by one editor. If the current discussion is resolved and consensus forms to rename the article that can be done. Vsmith (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

if a video would be of interest... http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2009/07/01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKEdwards (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cephalods??

[edit]

Is the redlink in the article supposed to be cephalopods? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I fixed it and also added "modern". Wilson44691 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What classes?

[edit]

The intro says "Some colonies of classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids". What does classes mean in this context? In some classes there are species where many individuals form colonies where ...; In some colonies (namely the colonies of particular species) each individual belongs to one of several classes. There are differences in form an function between individuals of different classes. OR ... --Ettrig (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for pointing that out! Is "Colonies of some classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids,..." better? --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This implies that division into types is the same for all species in the class, for all classes. Is this true? --Ettrig (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer may be in the main text, complete with refs - the phrase you rightly questioned was in the lead, which is a ( ? light-weight ?) summary. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems I must keep reading. Pterobranchs ==> Pterobranches ? This word is linked to a redirect page. Change link to Pterobranchia? --Ettrig (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pterobranchs" is correct and is the name for the actual animals. "Pterobranchia" is the name of the classification. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bryozoa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any notable species? I think giving the names of two species (the endangered on and the pest) in the lead is more exacting.
As Bryozoa is one of the "minor phyla" I suspect species names are not well-known to non-specialist professional zoologists! Hence I think "In Thailand, many populations of one freshwater species ..." and "A fast-growing invasive bryozoan off the ..." are more informative and I would not want to scrap those phrases. I not feel that adding the species names would make the lead much more informative, considering lead lengths are always under pressure. --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nitsche should have first name and who/what he is (American taxonomist or whatever).
At expense I've found the only high-quality ref on his full name, "Remarks on Dr. Nitsche's Researches on Bryozoa. By Professor Smitt", Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 1872 s2-12: 246-248 (journal now published as Journal of Cell Science - mosty other professional sources give surname only, a few give "Nitsche, H." and his dates. Wrote in German, but national unknown and murky, as it was in the years leading to Unification of Germany. Name of professioal speciality unknown.
Added forename "Hinrich" [sic]. Do you want a ref for the guy's full name - it would be a mini-essay on bibliographical archeology, not the usual cookie-cutter citation. --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the Classification and diversity section to become a subsection of taxonomy. The whole first paragraph is a much more precise explanation of the rather vague description of the ecto-/endoprocta in the section above. This whole para should be moved into and replace part of the first para of taxonomy section. If you'd rather I did it I will. never mind, done now
The basic shape of the "crown" is a full circle. - would 'ring' be more apt here?
"crown" is better because the ring is just the foundation for the tentacles, which do the real work. OTOH if you can think for a snappy alternative that would be great, as "crown" can be ambiguous - the fanciest crowns with cross-bars over the top would be inappropriate. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
circlet is the type I have in mind, but do you think that's well-known enough to non-specialist readers (of bryozoa or crowns or both)? --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was "The basic shape of the "crown" is a ring". (i.e circle with the middle missing.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I perhaps I now understand what you were getting at. I specifically wrote "full circle" because the conventional description of the lophophore of Phylactolaemata is "U-shaped" or "horseshoe-shape", but this is ambiguous. The basic shape of brachiopod lophophores is "U-shaped" or "horseshoe-shape" in the sense of having actual ends. In phylactolaemate bryozoans, the tentacles run round the inner as well as the outer edge, with a gap between the outer and inner edges except where they join at the tips of the "horseshoe". In others words the phylactolaemate is actually a single continuous ring with a deep dent in the circumference, as in the large pic in the centre of the collage at File:Haeckel Bryozoa.jpg. --Philcha (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a good idea to maybe look on flickr for some more images. I slotted in the same image for Membranipora membranacea but this has been used on two pages so far and it would be nice to find some different ones.
Never tried flickr. What's the copyright situation? --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the classification section moving up, really the whole evolution section should too - fascinating and quite convoluted at times. This allows a more coherent presentation of taxonomy and evolution which are intricately linked, and some material which is reduplicated can be removed (much like I just did in the classification bit). I am comparing structure with the bird article.
Sorry, I seriously agreedisagree with moving the class and orders up. Bryozoan are virtually unknown to non-specialist readers, and I think the lower taxa are meaningless until the key features have already been explained - e.g. "epistome", "operculum", "membranous sac", "Autozooids", "heterozooids", "Stolons". --Philcha (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH the "Naming" section (as was) should be at the top, as a warning of the issues about the name of the phylum. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean seriously disagree? (sigh) these pages are often tricky like this. I have another idea which might help, so watch the diffs and see what you think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: okay, now the page has four big sections which divide nicely into subsections, and some of the evolution/classification duplication can be melded nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're determined to get classification early! However, I thought carefully about the structure and order befor enominating this article.
  • The "Naming" section (as was) should be at the top, as a warning of the issues about the name. Zoologists have got into a muddle about naming this phylum.
  • Taxonomy is a convenient way of summarising groupings of features and of providing species counts. It should follow all the features, so that readers have all the bits of the jigsaw puzzle.
  • The typical "Taxonomy" section has little to do with evolution, especially in the lophotrochozoan "phyla" - cladistics, and especially molecular phylogeny, has often shredded Linnean taxonomy, leaving only a collection of convenient of labels. The structure I had before the review has working fairly well in several phyla (e.g. Annelida also destructs traditional taxonomy), and adapts well to cases where traditional taxonomy has been rewritten by cladistics. In the case of "Bryozoa" cladistics has questioning the traditional taxonomy in several ways.
I'm really sorry for being so blunt, but it would have been much better to ask questions than to charge in and restructure an article in which you've done little research. --Philcha (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yeah, I guess I could have discussed it first, but let's try and work towards something here - classification isn't early now. Having worked on a great many articles like these, the choice is either a description section (and subsections) first, or naming/taxonomy/classification/evolution section first. Usually the latter section is not so big, as it is generally a good idea to get the description close to the top (I had this problem in lion too), and I agree with you that it is important as most people are familiar with the term Bryozoa but likely haven't a clue what they are.

Looking back at this version, you have intimately linked material hived off into three sections - (1, 4 and 10). One can see they are linked as you've had to repeat yourself in each to link them. Cladistics by definition is intimately linked to evolution, and (as a way of classifying organisms) is intimately linked to Linnaean taxonomy, even if its conclusions are markedly different. Thus placing the two next to each other is is critical to understanding.

Ditto the naming issue, it looks very awkward discussing it in isolation, and then having to revisit the issue down the page in your version. Furthermore, the naming issue is more of interest to zoologists than the general public - it really doesn't hit the public radar. This is also where the benefit of a comprehensive lead comes in - the lead flags that there is an issue with the name which readers can read about in the article.

Don't you think with the sections it is alot more cohesive now. We can ask around some other folks who are familiar with more general TOL material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Have notified WP:TOL and content noticeboards. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main priority is to explain how the critters tick - especially in "minor phyla" like Bryozoa, where even professional zoologists who are non-specialists have relatively little knowledge (see a real specialist's complaint "Attempts to reconstruct the family tree of animals have largely ignored ectoprocts and other "minor phyla", which have received little scientific study ...").
From that perspective I regard the Linnean taxonomy as just an expository tool. Apart from the "spotters' guide" in the "Summary of distinguishing features" table (which I've found increasingly useful as another expository tool), "Description" esentially defines a toolkit. "Classification and diversity" identifies arrangements of subsets of the toolkit that are found in real life (classes, orders), and diversity fits there conveniently as species counts are almost always arranged in the Linnean taxonomy. "Classification and diversity" defines names that can then be used in explaining the variations in living processes like feeding, respiration, reproduction and ecology (as opposed to the static specimens in "Description").
That's why I'd still place "Fossil record" and "Evolutionary family tree" (aka phylogeny) towards the end, to avoid breaking up the account of living animals. I actually got into zoology articles from my interest in paleontology, so I enjoy phylogeny. But for the non-specialist reader a coherent of the living animals work is top priority - and in fact I got into phyla because my ignorance of the living animals was an increasing obstacle in paleontological articles (Halwaxiid was the breaking point).
In Bryozoa the "Evolutionary family tree" section is (even) more contentious than in other phyla I've worked on, which is another reason for placing phylogeny last - it's the first phyla for which I thought it imprudent to offer a cladogram, and I like cladograms because that's what's used in paleontology.
I place "Fossil record" just before "Evolutionary family tree" - partly just as a part of standard structure, but in some cases the phylogeny is strongly influenced by the fossil record (especially at Arthropod).
Does that explain my approach to the structure? --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I do find fascinating is how differing importance and subject matter impact on attempts at a standard layout for articles, given my experience with birds, fungi, plants, dinosaurs and mammals. With these critters, I agree that there are substantial differences again, and interesting ones - eg the public's unfamiliarity with what they actually are, and how classification is much more tied up with issues such as fossil record, alot of conjecture and politics of lack of focus on lower-order animals vs vertebrates as well as standard Linnaean vs cladistic taxonomy. And my feeling is the last is so entwined that it is best treated as a whole. By placing Description above it, one gives the readers a chance to see "what makes them tick". I did wonder whether placing the whole section on Behaviour might be good to segue straight after description, as as they are colony-forming it makes sense to link the two closely. This then leaves classification and fossils more towards the end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're dead right about "how differing importance and subject matter impact on attempts at a standard layout for articles" - for example dinos and most other vertebrates are easy because you can quite a lot of prior knowledge in readers. The other impact I've felt is taxonomic / phylogenic level - for species, genera and families editors tend to omit the basic zoology and spend more effort on "spotters' guides" (no snobbery here, what's the difference between X & Y is important). With phyla I've edited, each phyla has a different set of issues to be handled, often fairly early - how to define Mollusc, how Annelida has taken over 3 (or 4?) other former phyla, starting with a model organism and then into other sub-groups at Mollusc and Ctenophore, how some phyla have clear themes (the LEGO aspects of Arthropod, and how waterflow mechanisms and tranformations of cell type almost define Sponge), while others are hard to make coherent (Flatworm was a struggle). --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Behaviour":
  • I'm not comfortable about the title, and considered "Vital processes" (so 19th cent!). In e.g. a bird species, "Behaviour" is right because the article takes for granted digestive, respiratory and reproductive biology. But these are very important at the phylum level.
It's easier to present "Behaviour" / "Vital processes" after "Classification and diversity", especially if you look "Reproduction". Some of the specialised features are peculiar to phylactolaemates, but that's easily paraphrased as "the freshwater ones". OTOH "Some gymnolaemate species produce cyphonautes larvae ..." works much more smoothly if "Classification" has already explained "gymnolaemate ". --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I flipped back...how about Physiology to replace behaviour, as it is more chemical-ly with these critters than birds anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Physiology" might stick - that would be a first :-) --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Haven't forgotten about images - some uploaders will have "some rights reserved" rather than "all rights reserved" for images there, and if they allow commercial use then they have been picked up and transferred to commons by commons editors. Will ask someone who is more experienced at this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Commons a while ago, and then a days or so ago. Most are fossil photos. Want I'd really love will be a couple more diagrams. I tried Graphic Labs but they couldn't produce one on the sub-topic I wanted, and simply suggested a pretty but IMO less clear diagram equivalent to a daub I produced. In fact a good half of the phyla I've worked on rely on my attempts at functional anatomy. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  • Images need WP:ALT text. not a biggie for GA so wil pass it now.

Interesting read, great topic to work up as loads of the invertebrate articles are underdone on wiki. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

[edit]

After the Cheilostomata are introduced in the lead, the following sentences refer to all bryozoa, not just the Cheilostomata, right? I think that could be made clearer—for instance, "A few bryozoan species can creep..." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Autozooids supply nutrients to non-feeding zooids by channels that vary between classes" signals the switch from one class (Cheilostomata) to all classes. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, now that you mention it, but I think it needs to be signaled one sentence earlier, as I'd say the reader could easily think that only Cheilostomata species can creep. (Or is that true?) I'll reply to your comments below later. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "legs" are a specific application of "vibracula" zooids, peculiar to Cheilostomata, which has the largest repertoire of zooids. --Philcha (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think the sentence in the lead about creeping (if it belongs in the lead at all) should say that it's pecular to Cheilostomata. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the paragraph about the Entoprocta is relatively uninteresting, and it could go at the end, unless there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused. In general I like to see these naming issues addressed at the end. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused: the term "bryozoa" has a slim majority over "ectoprocta", but not be much, and many sources play safe by using mentioning both terms in their introductions; and some sources have revived the older idea that "bryozoa" includes both ectoprocts and entoprocts :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd suggest mentioning in that paragraph in the lead that the old idea has been revived, maybe with "In the taxonomy followed here, though..." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Both morphological and molecular phylogeny analyses disagree over..." This means morphological analyses disagree with each other and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree with each other, right? If so, I'm not sure the "both" is enough to keep readers from thinking that morphology is on one side and molecular phylogeny on the other, as I thought at first. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw "Both ..." I expect a statement that applies to both approaches. I suggest the alternative would be e.g. "morphological analyses indicate that ..., while molecular phylogeny analyses ...." However, if you can suggest wording you find less ambiguous but clear and concise, I'd be interested. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree that "both", as in the present article, means the statement applies to both approaches, so "Both A and B disagree" means "A disagrees and so does B". If you mean that morphological analyses indicate one thing and molecular-phylogeny analyses indicate something different, I'd suggest "Morphological analyses disagree with molecular-phylogeny analyses about bryozoans' relationships with entoprocts," etc. Another possibility is "Morphological analyses and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree..." but I think my first suggestion is clearer. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar of a sentence

[edit]

The article currently has the sentence, 'The more recently discovered group were given the name Entoprocta, while the original "Bryozoa" called "Ectoprocta".'

This is not grammatical—there are no "while" clauses without complete verbs. ("Called" here is a past participle, as you don't mean that the original Bryozoa called the Ectoprocta.) If you don't see it, you might ask someone else. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're surprisingly advanced, but too modest to claim credit for the telephone :-)
Oops! Fixed. --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryozoa. 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) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bryozoa. 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) 17:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is this thing called Bryozoa?

[edit]

I read some of the article. I gather that these are marine invertebrates of some kind. There is a hint that they live only in colonies of mutually dependent individuals, so probably they are very small. I don't find a single sentence that makes clear sense to me as someone who is not a marine invertebrate zoologist. Is there no one who knows how to write, at the least, an introduction that is in language suitable for a general encyclopedia? Zaslav (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say the article provides an admirably comprehensive introduction to a little-known group of small sea-beasties. We're told that they are widespread, have many predators, and are nearly all static and colonial. The article is well-illustrated, and any reader who wanted to skim the text would get a good quick overview from the photographs, diagrams, tree of relationships, and perhaps (at a more advanced level) a glance at the table of comparisons with related groups. Given the amount of information being put across from the hundred-odd technical sources, I'd say (as a contributor to many similar articles, but not this one) it was rather well done. I'd agree that the lead is a bit long, and the first paragraph perhaps a bit complicated, but I certainly don't think the authors incompetent or illiterate. Happy New Year. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. No one is saying the authors are "incompetent or illiterate". They have failed to convey basic information in the introduction in a way accessible to ordinary readers. We don't know they are small, we don't know they are static (this could be said in plainer English in the introduction: "they are small invertebrates that live in large, sessile colonies in which individual members take on differentiated functions", for example. How does that compare with the existing introduction? I would do it myself but I don't know that I would be accurate.
I want to ask whether you are any kind of expert, or are an ordinary reader, so I know how to interpret your impression. Zaslav (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really done here to make discussions personal as that can easily lead - does often lead - to personal attacks. However, I know some general biology; I have an amateur naturalist's interest in the sea and things in rock pools. I am certainly not an expert in Bryozoa. I was once taught that to write well about biology, one should write for a geologist: the idea was to assume he or she was intelligent and capable, but knew nothing of maxillae or messenger DNA. I feel that my geologist would see this article as quite detailed but certainly comprehensible. In other words the authors did a good job. I think the lead, especially the first paragraph, could be simplified a little, but it's already to a good standard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryozoans. Some are solitary but all are colonial. Wait.

[edit]

The article says, "One genus is solitary and the rest are colonial." (Introduction)

It also says, "They are the only major phylum of exclusively clonal animals, and they are all colonial ..."

I'm pretty sure that those sentences do not agree. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, I chopped the second bit. Most of us discovered early in our editing careers that the word "all" was to be used with extreme caution, if ever... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian

[edit]

I don't have time or skills to do the update here, but bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian of China and Australia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04033-w

Wilson44691 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which animals are bryozoans and what class are they in

[edit]

What animals are in Bryozoa and what class are they in? 100.8.89.159 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryozoa is a phylum. It includes several classes. "Classes" is in the article's table of contents. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 12 is not a professional source

[edit]

Citation 12 'introduction to bryozans' seems like it's not a very informative source 70.189.72.110 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It's hard to know how independently vetted the site is, so it would be nice to have an additional reliable source for any statements solely supported by this source. However, it's not a source I'd reject out of hand. Note that the page being linked has further links to other parts of the site, so there's more information than what is just on the front page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bryozoa&oldid=1193680519"