Talk:Siphon (mollusc)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Link[edit]

Should the siphon link in "The hyponome of cephalopods" section be redirected to siphon (biology)? I don't think the siphon in a cephalopod does the same thing mechanically as a siphon (i.e. "allows liquid to drain from a reservoir through an intermediate point that is higher, or lower, than the reservoir"), does it? K-22-22 (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've made the change. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Images for article[edit]

Mollusc???[edit]

I could swear that it was spelled "mollusk". But maybe its just me...

See American and British English spelling differences. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Anthony Appleyard makes a good point, and the article's current title agrees with Siphon (insect anatomy).-- Hadal (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Siphon (mollusc anatomy)Siphon (mollusc) Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • To be compatible in naming with other related articles. It already existed under the name "Siphon (mollusc)". --Snek01 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose somewhat. "Siphon (mollusc)" sounds like that a siphon is a type of mollusc, whereas it is actually a part of a mollusc. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Siphon (mollusc anatomy)Siphon (mollusc) – To be compatible in naming with other related articles: Aperture (mollusc), Apex (mollusc), Callus (mollusc), Ctenidium (mollusc), Diverticula (mollusc), Lira (mollusc), Mantle (mollusc), Sculpture (mollusc), Septum (mollusc), Spire (mollusc), Umbilicus (mollusc), Valve (mollusc), Varix (mollusc) and Whorl (mollusc). It already existed under the name "Siphon (mollusc)". I understand that proposed compatibility with "Siphon (insect anatomy)" is very praiseworthy, but there are also other criteraia such as compatibility with names in the same field than with unrelated field. --Snek01 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it is a mollusc-related article, following a mollusc-related project standard should be a priority, no? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, without completely revising our system for naming articles, I think it should probably stay the way it was. If we start putting "mollusk anatomy" into the title then we also have to decide issues such as: should we distinguish between the anatomy of the shell and the anatomy of the soft parts. Historically these have (almost routinely) been two completely separate studies that were carried out in different centuries by completely different scientists. Invertzoo (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Geoduck/Abrupta[edit]

Compare:

"Three specimens of Panopea abrupta in a seafood tank; the paired siphons (or "necks") of this species can be one meter long"

Caption for image on this article, and:

"Four live geoducks in a seafood tank"

Caption for same image on the Geoduck article.

Can anyone say which is correct? 77.103.132.143 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, very good, very helpful, thanks for pointing this out. A careful examination of the image reveals that four is the correct number of individual clams. As for the names, one is the scientific name, the other is the popular name, they are both correct. Invertzoo (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)