Talk:Body cavity

==old question==

Untitled

which body cavity affords the least protection to its internal structures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.66.238 (talk • contribs)

Acoelom. The fluid filled cavities (coelom and pseudocoel) won't crush under pressure and act as shock absorbers. TheLimbicOne 13:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Merges

Finished merge. TheLimbicOne 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet chased down and killed redirects, but I will tommorrow. TheLimbicOne 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Finished now. TheLimbicOne 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to cleaning up this article, I'd like to merge the suggested articles into here. Reasons: An article on body cavities should include a definition and details about the major types of body cavities:

• coelom
• pseudocoel
• no coelom (ie: the acoelomate animals)

Anyone object or have comments? TheLimbicOne 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

split

The point of my merges is to make this an article about the major body cavities of all animals. Therefore, after the merge, I'd like to split this out into its own article (assuming there's not already an article it would fit into). TheLimbicOne 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My take is that this article should have a brief section on humans and that if there's too much information for this article, the spillover can go into Human body cavity. See WP:Summary Style. I can't believe I just referred to something spilling into a human body cavity. Dave (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspect info, needs sources

These relatively obscure details are important to evolutionary theory. It is presumed that the bilateria evolved from a single common ancestor, and that the division between protostomes and deuterostomes represents an early step in that evolution. Since fossil evidence from that remote period is fragmentary and not always helpful, the analysis of animal development provides additional clues to the evolution of multi-celled animals. The origin of the coelom is unknown. It has been proposed that it developed within a group of organisms known as acoelomates via some members of another group known as "pseudocoelomates". Alternatively, it is thought that the coelom may have evolved from gastric pouches ("stomachs" sort of) in cnidarians.

I deleted the previous pargraph from the original article. While performing a merge/re-write I found a source (columbia university press encyclopedia) that supports this info. I put it back into the re-written article, but I shortened it to a bulleted list. TheLimbicOne 13:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Please strengthen the evolution information in this article. TheLimbicOne 13:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fluids do not compress" is just not true. I'm not really a wikieditor, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elewton (talk • contribs)

My review

I don't know much about comparative anatomy, but here's my take on the article:

1. Since some people may type in the various terms that redirect here (e.g. the old taxonomic names) the lead to the article should explain that these are no longer used and point to articles (e.g. nematoda) that are relevant.
   1. I'll see what I can do about clearing this up, but taxonomy is not my strong suit. Some books (like my biology text, starr in the references) say that nematoda is no longer a taxonomic group, but I still see it used. For another example, homonid sometimes only includes humans and our ancestors (my biology text again) and sometimes includes the other great apes (wikipedia and wikispecies). That's very frustrating to me. --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Ideally, facts would be sourced individually with some kind of footnotes. See WP:CITE
   1. The only fact that wasn't printed in all of my reference material was the fact I cited about the support of one evolutionary theory over another. That's why I chose not to cite more often. --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
3. The human section as currently written could probably be expanded to all mammals (though it's possible that some cavities have been developed or lost in some lineages, I sort of doubt it.) and it might be interesting to write about what cavities other vertebrates have.
   1. I agree on this one. --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I'd point out somewhere early in the article that sometimes when people say "body cavity," they mean "abdominal body cavity," as in "body cavity searches." I'd put the searches in a "see also" section or something.
   1. I think I'll add a section heading called "other uses" and discuss the layman use of the word body cavity. On the same note, is my first statement of the broadest definition accurate? --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
5. The article is not yet comprehensive, though it looks better than before TLO got started on it. For now, I'd focus on adding text to supplement the lists, in particular with regard to evolution and development of the cavity in various lineages (or perhaps just in our lineage).
6. If there are publicly available pictures (try CDC.gov, NIH.gov, and certain .edu sites), they should be added. If not, you might want to draw one or two and post them yourself.

I have to go to dinner now. If you want any more advice, let me know. Dave (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off Human cavities into separate article

I don't see anything in that section unique to humans. THB 13:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Acoelomate

I think that Acoelomate should be in a separate article. --Meldor (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Is Dorssal spelled correctly in the Human Body Cavities image? Shouldn't that be Dorsal? If so, can the image be corrected? Anomalocaris (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages of Acoelomates

The Body cavity#No coelom (Acoelomate) section states: "Fluids do not compress, while the tissue surrounding the organs of these animals will compress." as a disadvantage.

Surely this is incorrect (tissues, made up of cells, are primarily water so do not compress either). Would a more general statement such as "organs contained within a fluid filled compartment have greater protection from outside forces than those that are not due to the cushioning effect of the surrounding liquid" would be more accurate? - Zephyris _Talk 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Image

Why is it a picture of a female? I don't have anything against women, but it is quite non-standard and something you would be much less likely to see in a textbook. Traditionally general diagrams of humans are males, partially because in many cases a male diagram is applicable to females, but not vice versa (think breasts/ovaries = distortion). While I am not trying to make a sexist point here, I believe the original author probably was. Because apparently societal equality can be measured by how many body diagrams are female. It's not the most important thing in the world, but if an equally suitable male diagram arises, it might be preferable to use it. 219.90.191.24 (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand any of the arguments you're making here. What do you mean "non-standard"? It's certainly not against any standards that apply to Wikipedia. Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say "a male diagram is applicable to females, but not vice versa". If a female is a "distortion" of a male, then a male is equally a "distortion" of a female. I agree with you that it's silly to prefer female images or examples because they supposedly make something less sexist, but it's equally silly to prefer male images. There's no reason to prefer either one over the other. —Keenan Pepper 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)