Talk:Ctenophora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ctenophora 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.
April 3, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Animals (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Ctenophora is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Arctic (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Marine life (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Copyvio from external link?[edit]

The "external link" has a few lines that are exactly the same as those in the Wikipedia article, making me thing some wikipedian went a plagiarized a little.

Is it plagiarism if the person who wrote the original work added the same words to Wikipedia? Not positive, but I think that's what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuckartiara (talkcontribs) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology?[edit]

I'm inserting a request on the talk pages for Ctenophore and Cnidaria to add an Etymology section. The "silent c" is uncommon enough in language that I'd be very interested to know where it comes from.174.46.172.13 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See Ctenophore#Description. The "ct" beginning of a word (κτ in Greek, "kt") is fairly common in Ancient Greek, but I can't think of other languages that use it. --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation from German Wikipedia[edit]

Just a quick heads up - a translation from the featured de:Rippenquallen is in progress. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Expert tag added[edit]

The {{expert}} tag has been added to the article in case anything was lost in translation - I'm not a biologist, so can't be 100% sure that words like 'cilia' and 'phylogeny' have been used completely accurately. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the best template to use? I'm not an expert (actually just a high school student taking AP Biology), but I can tell you that those two words work, and are fine in the article where I've seen them. Could you translate the article for Cnidaria next? Twilight Realm 05:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been reviewing it myself every so often - I recently changed a translation of the German 'Schleim' from 'slime' to 'mucus', which I'm fairly sure is preferable. Things like that remind me that I'm not a biology expert and that I may have missed other sub-optimal translations. But if you don't see anything, I'm happy for you to remove the expert tag. 'Expert' might be slightly misleading, someone knowledgable in the subject was all I was looking for.
It would ideally still need someone to convert the references to in-line form, which would require someone who had access to the references provided (or some equally good ones). It couldn't be that hard, the references include page numbers after all - if I was still at university I'd have a look in the library myself. So that's not exactly an expert thing either, but it's still something that's beyond me at the moment. If that was done and my prose was overhauled, I see no reason why this couldn't join the German article as a featured article.
I'll certainly have a go at Cnidaria at some point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely deleted obscene pictures from this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J;lkupoi (talkcontribs) .


From what I have read about the molecular analysis, ctenophores are believed to be basal to the metazoa. That leaves bilaterians and cnidarians as sister groups, contrary both to classical view and modern morphological view.

  • I edited some of it, fixing some translation and misconceptions, but I agree with the comments above about them being basal metazoa -- I didn't try to sort that part out yet.

Regarding the pet question, the answer is: not really, but some tropical platyctenes can live in a bowl on your desk for a while... beroe 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


does anyone know if these can be kept as pets?

Relative place on animal tree[edit]

Aren't ctenophores between trichoplax and cnidaria? Werothegreat 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mesoglea?[edit]

If mesoglea is the preferred spelling, instances of mesogloea should be edited conformably. --Wetman 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

I'm not an expert in the area, but I think this page could be vastly improved by editing of the introduction. The rest of its layout is well-organized and attractive, and the intro really detracts from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.133.94.29 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Editing" is pretty vague. Doing what, exactly? 130.216.172.70 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

150,000 described species?[edit]

The atricle claims that there are close to 150,000 described species. Is it really true that so many species of Ctenophore are known, or is there perhaps an error in this claim, maybe even as much as three decimal orders of magnitude? 130.188.8.9 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the number of known species was changed from 150 to 150,000 by some casual user on March 19th. I have reverted this now, in good faith. Feel free to change it back to 150,000 if you have good references. 130.188.8.9 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

150 is a good upper-end estimate of number of species. More accurate perhaps is to say 100-150, which is what I came up with after a lot of thought a few years ago. Cteno-taxonomist Leuckartiara (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particularly good source for identification of the individual species? 100-150 doesn't seem very many to catalogue. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an online species list at http://faculty.washington.edu/cemills/Ctenolist.html with nearly 200 species names. Many of them have not been revisited in decades (centuries in some cases) - and in some cases it is about impossible to tell what the old description refers to by what we know about species now. Scientists who work on ctenophores are aware of additional 25-40 undescribed species, but haven't gotten around to describing them yet. There is not any kind of world compendium of modern ctenophore species that includes descriptions and illustrations of each species. The single modern publications with the most descriptions and illustrations of ctenophores were both written for species on the west coast of North America, but include a number of oceanic or deep sea species that can be found elsewhere. These include Wrobel and Mills, 1998 and 2003, which unfortunately is out of print and fairly difficult to find these days, and a section on Ctenophores by Mills and Haddock (2007) from Light and Smith's Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates of the Central California Coast. Fourth Edition (J.T. Carlton, editor). University of California Press, Berkeley. The pdf of this chapter can be found online. Much of the information about ctenophores from the Wrobel and Mills (1998) book can be found online at http://jellieszone.com/ctenophores.htm. Although, as you point out, 100-150 doesn't seem very many to catalogue, none of the scientists who study ctenophore taxonomy is devoted solely to this group, so progress is slow and sporadic. (Mediterranean ctenophores were summarized and illustrated by Carl Chun in 1880, but this is obviously hard to find and in German [Chun, C. 1880. Die Ctenophoren des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-abschnitte. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, herausgegeben von der zoologischen Station in Neapel. I. Monographie XVIII. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 313 pages with 18 plates and 22 text-figures] and ctenophores on the eastern seaboard of North America were monographed in 1912 by A.G. Mayer [Mayer, A.G. 1912. Ctenophores of the Atlantic Coast of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 162: 1-58.] Leuckartiara (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested[edit]

Could someone knowledgable clarify the following wording:

For this reason the 'classical' grouping of Coelenterata stands opposite the alternative taxon of Acrosomata:
Alternative 1: Coelenterata
..
Alternative 2: ...

Are the two alternatives both "new" (as opposed to classical)? Or are both alternatives classical? Or is one new and one classical? Also, the phrase "stands opposite" is new to me ... if it is a term of art in the phylogentic community, perhaps you could find a more commonplace substitute. Regards, --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible makeover[edit]

Hi, I currently have D. T. Anderson's Invertebrate Zoology (2nd ed, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001, ISBN 0-19-551368-1) and Ruppert, Fox, & Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology – A functional evolutionary approach (Brooks/Cole 2004, ISBN 0-03-025982-7) on loan from a library, and am going though the WP articles on the main invertebrate phyla. So far I've used them to get Mollusc and Arthropod to GA, upgrade Spider so it kept its GA status (it was about to lose that as a result of a reassessment), and I've submitted upgraded versions Chelicerate and Sponge for GA review - and will soon submit Cnidaria for GA review. Ctenophore is B-class but seems to have a lot of gaps. How would you feel if I did a similar makeover job on Ctenophore? --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Years have passed since you made this comment, but I would (still) recommend that you not use textbooks as authorities on the less-studied invertebrate phyla including Ctenophora. Many statements about (for instance) ctenophores in textbooks appear as generalizations for the whole group, when they come from single species and are not further applicable. Authors of general invertebrate textbooks are not hugely familiar with many of the less-common groups and should not be considered the final authority. Leuckartiara (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox Picture[edit]

Can anybody find a better picture for the taxobox? I know those types of pictures confuse me, though I don't know if they confuse anybody else...Barn Owl 444 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

These might be useful: --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview[edit]

Anatomy & vital functions[edit]

The anatomical diagram of a cydippid ctenophore is not correctly labeled. The location labeled "stomach" is merely an area where the canals merge. The stomach of a ctenophore is the same as its "pharynx" - if colored pink, that color should be applied to the entire region from the mouth down to the complicated intersection of canals above the word "stomach". The colorless areas on this diagram are the canal system. Leuckartiara (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

repro & development[edit]

Reproduction[edit]

Movement[edit]

Bioluminescence[edit]


Ecological aspects[edit]

Invasive[edit]

Other ecological aspects[edit]


Classification[edit]

Fossil record[edit]

Evolutionary history[edit]


Interaction w humans[edit]

Vision ??[edit]

This edit added a sub-section by vision. The source is encyclopedia, not an academic source, and a academic who is an expert on Ctenophora says this idea is not supported by any artcicle know to our exper. So its gone.

Pleurobranchia or Pleurobrachia[edit]

The article has two mentions of Pleurobranchia. Is that correct or should it be Pleurobrachia? Nurg (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Pleurobranchia was a typo, and I've fixed all cases to Pleurobrachia. Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Pleurobranchaea is a marine mollusc - a nudibranch.Leuckartiara (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2010

Thanks[edit]

Leuckartiara, many thanys. --Philcha (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

explosive growth[edit]

The combination of hermaphroditism and early reproduction enables small populations to grow at an explosive rate.

is it really accurate to say this? An explosive growth rate comes from prolific fecundity. Hermaphroditism would double whatever other population growth rate they have (doubling is not explosive when you consider that some creatures produce 1 egg per period, while others produces 1000s or more), and early reproduction I guess makes the timescale shorter, but measured "generationally" the growth rate would be whatever it otherwise is. Again, these creatures would have explosive growth rates if individuals both produce a zillion fertilized eggs, and if a significant number of offspring live to reproductive age, regardless how long that takes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.97.122 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The mention of pop. growth in the article body cites a source which states "Whereas most medusae grow to adult size before beginning to produce eggs or sperm, ctenophores seem to produce small numbers of gametes before they reach adult size, and thus may have very rapid generation times, resulting in rapid population growth." Obviously growth rate is the ratio of fecundity to generation time, and neither alone is sufficient, wouldn't you agree? But do go ahead and improve the article (the lead generally appears to contain too much material at present). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)