|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Not informative of phylogeny
Coeloms are not considered informative characters anymore. The page should be edited to reflect this.
- This issue has now been fixed, as the current image clearly shows a true coelom. Augurar (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Body cavity article
Misleading phrasing (not sure how to correct)
The introduction uses the phrase "higher metazoans" and "less developed animals". These terms are not really in line with current evolutionary theory (see e.g. Largest-scale trends in evolution). However, due to the vagueness of these terms, I'm not really sure how to replace them. It's possible that these terms are not descriptive, but definitional, i.e. "higher metazoans" are those with epithelium-lined coela. Can anyone clarify? Augurar (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coelom. 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/20090406000959/http://courses.bio.psu.edu:80/fall2005/biol110/tutorials/tutorial39.htm to http://courses.bio.psu.edu/fall2005/biol110/tutorials/tutorial39.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
I love the editors of Wikipedia, but every now-and-then I see something that makes me despair. The Classification section had these three examples of textbooks—(e.g., Hyman, 1940)(even recent as Margulis & Chapman, 2009)(e.g., Whittaker, 1969)[sic]. Nowhere at all in the entire article, including references, is there any other information about them! Really!?! This is some editor's idea of good writing?