Template talk:Animalia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animals (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon Animalia 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Polypodiozoa[edit]

Should this be added to this template? Lavateraguy (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This template badly needs citations. --24.5.147.203 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and Updates[edit]

I was looking into these phylogenies, and I've found some recent review articles that could be cited, and which also suggest improvements to this template.

The first is a review article from 2011, [1], which has been fairly highly cited since then (98 times), which summarizes recent results and gives a 'consensus' phylogeny. I've copied the cladogram below. * means the node has 'broad consensus'. Overall it agrees well with what's in the template. Here are the places with important differences:

  • everything under Lophophorata is placed differently in the cladogram below (which has a new category 'Polyzoa')
  • everything under Xenacoelomorpha is placed differently in the cladogram below

Minor differences (probably can be left alone):

  • Chaetognatha is in Protostomia by article, but it falls easily into the 'disputed' category.
  • cladogram is a little more precise about the Panarthropoda

Also, there seems to be some confusion elsewhere over whether Lophotrochozoa and Spiralia are different. I have not understood the relation yet.



Choanozoa


Metazoa

Ctenophora



Calcarea



Silicea



Homoscleromorpha



Placozoa



Cnidaria


Bilateria


Xenoturbellida


Acoelomorpha

Nemertodermatida



Acoela




Nephrozoa*
Deuterostomia*
Chordata

Cephalochordata


Olfactores

Urochordata



Craniata (including Vertebrata)




Ambulacraria

Echinodermata



Hemichordata




Protostomia*

Chaetognatha


Ecdysozoa*
Nematozoa

Nematoda



Nematomorpha




Tardigrada




Onychophora



Arthropoda



Scalidophora

Priapulida



Loricifera



Kinorhyncha




Spiralia*
Polyzoa

Bryozoa




Entoprocta



Cycliophora




Trochozoa*

Annelida



Mollusca



Nemertea




Brachiopoda



Phoronida




Platyzoa*

Gastrotricha



Platyhelminthes


Gnathifera

Gnathostomulida



Micrognathozoa



Rotifera










I found another 2013 review article which attempts to describe current consensus on the more ancient metazoan divergences [2] from March 2013, cited 9 times since then. As you can read in the article, although this is the current consensus it is still somewhat uncertain. Probably the template's small amount of detail is enough, but in case we want more detail the cladogram is below. This would clarify the Mesozoa, Parazoa and Radiata in the template. I'm not sure if combining the two cladograms would count as 'original research', since how to do so is a tiny bit subjective.





Metazoa
Epitheliozoa

Bilateria


Cnidaria

Medusozoa



Anthozoa




Ctenophora



Placozoa



Porifera


Hexactinellida



Demospongiae





Calcarea



Homoscleromorpha






Choanoflagellata




Capsaspora




Ichthyosporea




Fungi



Finally, here is yet another article which confirms the the last two above [3] from April 2014, 2 non-self citations since then. It does have one difference: It groups the Ctenophora and Cnidaria together. Otherwise it looks identical. I did not find any other more relevant articles.

I will let this sit here until I have time to work on it again or read the articles more closely, and then maybe I'll update the template. Ahalda (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've updated it now. Another issue I didn't notice before has to do with the monophyly of the panarthropoda/Cycloneuralia, and specifically whether tardigrada should be included in panarthropoda. The 2011 paper says this is still uncertain. Hwoever I found a 2014 review by the same author on panarthropoda[4], which says the best evidence suggests it is monophylic. Therefore I have left that part as it is. On the other hand, a different 2011 publication (including Edgecomb as author again) claims that Cycloneuralia is paraphyletic. [5] Therefore I have removed it. Ahalda (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


This template does not match at all with the cladogram in metazoaJmv2009 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is only one inconsistency, in the placement of Ctenophora. That makes sense, since the metazoa page was recently updated based on some 2014 publications on the placement of Ctenophora. I looked into moving Ctenophora in the template, but I think we should make other changes as well: The subkingdoms Mesozoa, Parazoa and Radiata look to me to be obsolete. They are probably paraphyletic, and their wiki pages say they are only use informally/historically now. Ahalda (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dendrogramma[edit]

Shouldn't Dendrogramma be added to this table... although I'm not certain where! Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Dendrogramma article itself considers it a Cnidarian. Shouldn't Dendrogramma be removed from this table? Ypna (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Yes, they found more and got some DNA from them. Bondegezou (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Porifera placement[edit]

Animal#Ctenophora.2C_Porifera.2C_Placozoa.2C_Cnidaria_and_Bilateria argues for a rather different phylogeny than this template shows. Any thoughts on whether we should reflect that? Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Nephrozoa?[edit]

Rouse et al. (2016)[6] uses Nephrozoa for a clade including deuterostomes and protostomes, but excluding Xenacoelomorpha. "Nephrozoa" was first introduced in:

Jondelius, U., Ruiz-Trillo, I., Baguñà, J. & Riutort, M. (2002). The Nemertodermatida are basal bilaterians and not members of the Platyhelminthes. Zoologica Scripta, 31(2):201–215.

Should we add Nephrozoa? Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete taxa[edit]

Why does this navbox have an obsolete section? From experience it is more normal for these navboxes to only show what is accepted, not what isn't accepted. Ypna (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose there is some value in it; some of these taxa are still often treated separately (e.g. Sipuncula). Maybe I could at least condense the section. Ypna (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Major groups within phyla[edit]

I find the new "major groups within phyla" section confusing. Can it be made more visually distinct so it doesn't just look like another phylum? Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well one possible way would be to have a different background. I might experiment with this to see what it's like. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Mesozoans[edit]

"The Genome of Intoshia linei Affirms Orthonectids as Highly Simplified Spiralians" (2016) "The phylogenetic position of dicyemid mesozoans offers insights into spiralian evolution" (2017) Can someone edid the template accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.238.142.39 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We should move Orthonectida from Mesozoans to Spiralia, parallel to Gnathifera and Platytrochozoa, based on Kirill V. Mikhailov, Georgy S. Slyusarev, Mikhail A. Nikitin, Maria D. Logacheva, Aleksey A. Penin, Vladimir V. Aleoshin, Yuri V. Panchin (2016), "The Genome of Intoshia linei Affirms Orthonectids as Highly Simplified Spiralians", Current Biology, 26, 1768–1774. However, the syntax of the table has defeated me: can't work out how to do it! Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

> Both Orthonectida and Dicyemida should go to Rouphozoa, based on the second of the cited above papers.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Giribet, Gonzalo; Dunn, Casey W.; Hejnol, Andreas; Kristensen, Reinhardt M.; Neves, Ricardo C.; Rouse, Greg W.; Worsaae, Katrine; Sørensen, Martin V. (2011). "Higher-level metazoan relationships: recent progress and remaining questions.". Organisms, Diversirt and evolution. doi:10.1007/s13127-011-0044-4. 
  2. ^ Dohrmann, Martin; Wörheide, Gert (2013). "Novel Scenarios of Early Animal Evolution—Is It Time to Rewrite Textbooks?". Integrative and Comparative Biology. doi:10.1093/icb/ict008. 
  3. ^ Shua, Degan; Isozakib, Yukio; Zhanga, Xingliang; Hana, Jan; Maruyamac, Shigenori (2014). "Birth and early evolution of metazoans". Gondwana Research. doi:10.1016/j.gr.2013.09.001. 
  4. ^ Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Legg, David A. (2014). "Origins and early evolution of arthropods". Palaeontology. doi:10.1111/pala.12105. 
  5. ^ Rota-Stabelli, Omar; Campbell, Lahcen; Brinkmann, Henner; Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Longhorn, Stuart J.; Peterson, Kevin J.; Pisani, Davide; Philippe, Hervé; Telford, Maximilian J. (2011). "A congruent solution to arthropod phylogeny: phylogenomics, microRNAs and morphology support monophyletic Mandibulata". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0590. 
  6. ^ Rouse, Greg W.; Wilson, Nerida G.; Carvajal, Jose I.; Vrijenhoek, Robert C. (2016-02-03). "New deep-sea species of Xenoturbella and the position of Xenacoelomorpha". Nature (530): 94–97. doi:10.1038/nature16545. Retrieved 2016-02-03.