Talk:Polypodium hydriforme

Animals Mid‑importance

Polypodium hydriforme 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.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Evans Paper

I'm not an invert person, but just as a note, there is a published correction saying the Polypodium 28S sequence in this paper were contaminated. It might be worth mentioning in the paragraph on this paper since it is a critical sequence. I have the pdf if anyone needs it. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is late, but, there's never a wrong time to add more information. Unless this has already been done and subsequently removed, I'd be interested in this. However I'd also like to get the confusing information that this parasite is related to Bilateria off of the article, and I suspect the original researchers at some point admitted that they were wrong because the DNA of the organism they were comparing it to was also contaminated. Apparently myxozoans do not have Hox genes and therefore the Hox genes they found that they assumed indicated that myxozoans were an early branch of Bilateria, were in fact DNA sequences that had somehow rubbed off from the host. —Soap— 14:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endocnidozoa

A 2018 paper by Kayal et al. places the Polypodiozoa within the clade Endocnidozoa. Do any other papers support this? Zumley (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polypodium (animal) → Polypodium (cnidarian) – disambiguator qualifier "(animal)" is generally not allowed. See explanation here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation Estopedist1 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Vaticidalprophet 07:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposed, though (parasite) might be an alternative too In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while its generally not used, in this case, since the distinction is between the plant Polypodium and the animal Polypodium, I see no better way to disambiguate. The suggested disambiguation term cnidarian is not very WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the average reader. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Netoholic (recognizability) Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew and Peter coxhead: disambiguator qualifier "(animal)" should be obviously bad solution. Disambiguator qualifier "(cnidarian)" is definitely better and per User:Estopedist1/Taxons_and_disambiguation#Animals our best option as well --Estopedist1 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry, Estopedist1, I agree with the other editors above. Scientifically, the disambiguation needed is between genera subject to the ICNafp and genera subject to the ICZN, in brief between "botany" and "zoology", and if we were starting again, this is what I would argue for. A default of "plant" and "animal" seems sensible to me. Given that there are many more animal genera, where there are easily recognizable alternatives to "animal", such as "moth", "beetle" or "fish", then I can see why they would be used. But "cnidarian" is not recognizable to the general reader (and even though I studied invertebrate zoology as an undergraduate, I have to think twice to remember what it means). It might be different if it were a more typical cnidarian, so you were proposing something like "jellyfish", "coral" or "sea anemone". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet, In ictu oculi, Randy Kryn, Peter coxhead, and Plantdrew: wow! Precedent and probably big chaos is coming! It is a strong setback against harmonization of titles of taxons articles. Tens and tens of disambiguator qualifiers like "(bryozoan)", "(brachiopod)", "(ctenophore)" are questionable after this discussion --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; after all, even if articles were moved, redirects can be left, and if not moved, redirects can be created. But we do need a wider discussion, e.g. at WT:ANIMALS, to try to establish a consensus on how to form disambiguated titles for animal genera, remembering that the relevant parts of WP:AT apply still. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.