Talk:Multicellular organism/Archive 1

Merger proposal

The article on the multicellular organisms consists mainly of two sections on "Evolutionary history" and "Hypotheses for origin". Both of them are treated with more detail in evolution of multicellularity. In turn, the latter article would benefit from an overview of just how often multicellularity actually evolved. MichaK (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All plants are multicellular?

This article says all plants are multicellular, but Valonia ventricosa says it is plant and unicellular.--MathFacts (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple fix, the article already said 'except for specialized organisms such as'. I've just added the single celled plant there as another exception to the rule Jebus989^✰ 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The larger issue is that there are multiple definitions of "plant". In the strictest sense they are land plants (all multicellular), whereas algae like Valonia ventricosa are included in the loser definition. So I've excluded algae in the main article. MichaK (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages of Multicellularity

Someone added a section "Disadvantages of Multicellularity" to the article, listing: "Cancer and autoimmune disease. Greater nutritional requirements." I've reverted this, as cancer and autoimmune disease are specific to animal only, but not the numerous other instances of multicellular organisms. The nutritional requirements need to be compared to unicellular organisms. MichaK (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, plants might be able to get cancer, it's just rarer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1991.tb02489.x/abstract due to their cells' totipotency. Autoimmune disease is of course limited to multicellular organisms that have immune systems. I think it's important to have a disadvantages section though, even if not the ones listed before. Mat8989 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Multicellularity

The claim that sexual reproduction is a requirement for multicellularity has been flagged "citation needed" for four years, appears to be a non sequitur, and conflicts with other information in the article--e.g. sponges and slime molds which are listed as multicellular can reproduce asexually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusQ (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multicellular animal

This article almost exclusively delivers content about animals. That's why I copied his majority in the article Multicellular animal. Even exist article of Multicellular fungi. Where is/are Multicellular plant/s?!

Multicellular animals + multicellular plants + multicellular fungi = Multicellular organisms!!!

Multicellular animal is never = multicellular organisms!!!

Yahadzija (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multicellular organism. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/biog1101/outlines/Bonner%20-Origin%20of%20Multicellularity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The role of viruses

The section "the role of viruses" is not well supported by literature. For instance: The claim that EFF1 comes from a virus is not supported by the referenced paper of Jamin, M, et al. (2014). Primarily, homology to a virus protein does not necessarily mean that it comes from a virus. Rtaher, they state "it is not possible to assess whether it originally was viral or cellular". Although, I see that this is a nice story I think this part needs a more careful touch.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anha4440. Peer reviewers: Tmahseredjian, BZenith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First evidence 3.5 billion a ago?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what is this? I thought the oldest evidence of multicellular organisms was from "only" some 1.5 billion years ago. The cite note doesn't seem to work . Weren't the first forms of life estimatedly from this far away, is that what was meant by here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÖrkkiErkki++ (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.5 billion is approximately correct, and the citation is appropriate. From page 622 of Grosberg & Strathmann 2007:

The first evidence of this transition comes from fossils of prokaryotic filamentous and mat-forming Cyanobacteria-like organisms, dating back 3 to 3.5 billion years (Knoll 2003, Schopf 1993), with signs of cell differentiation more than 2 billion years ago (Tomitani et al. 2006).

The 1.5 billion year figure mentioned above probably refers to the earliest eukaryotic multicellular organisms, which didn't appear until much later than prokaryotic multicellular organisms such as filamentous cyanobacteria. I'll replace the cite note with a working link. Xprinceps (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

two statements on the enumeration of the contexts in which multicellularity evolved should be reconciled. it is first stated that:

[...] complex multicellular organisms evolved only in six eukaryotic groups: animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants.

but subsequently that:

[Multicellularity] evolved repeatedly for Chloroplastida (green algae and land plants), once or twice for animals, once for brown algae, three times in the fungi (chytrids, ascomycetes and basidiomycetes)[10] and perhaps several times for slime molds and red algae.

slime molds were not mentioned in first instance.

81.0.162.111 (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction here, since the first quote is about "complex" multicellular organisms, the second about multicellularity more broadly (including "simple" multicellularity as observed in slime molds). Xprinceps (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]