Talk:Animal

Thanks for the effort, but--ouch, not a good first sentence. Please see Biology for a model of readability, and Article Mechanics for some relevant comments. --Larry Sanger 14:31, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

On phylogeny: help!

I've been writing this article for the past few days, but I've hit a snag: animal phylogeny. I've been referring to my introductory biology textbook for most of my information, but with some research in journals I've found that the theory that my book uses is still controversial and muddled sometimes, especially in Bilateria. The most fundamental argument is over the pitfalls of the new data from molecular phylogeny, etc. used to rearrange everything. Other smaller examples include where Rotifera, Acoelomorpha, etc. are placed among Deuterostomia, Ecdysozoa, and Lophotrochozoa.

I'm now too afraid to type any more on the phylogeny section now that I know that my book is contradicted by other recent reports; I don't know if I've written anything that's false. (My book, the Freeman text cited in the article, is from last year, so it's recent. I don't know enough to gauge its objectivity, however.) I ask for help from everyone who knows enough about animal taxonomy. I welcome suggestions here, but editing the article itself is great too! Joshua Choi 23:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that "Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny", or is it vice versa? See my novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum_Monsters, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm afraid my muddled mind can't understand yet how I may apply ontogeny to the phylogeny section. Most of all, it seems like I'm groping around with this article on my own, and I am in no way a professional biologist, so I don't know well what's going on right now. I guess I can just plod ahead with my book's phylogeny, noting in the text that the accepted model is still controversial and being fleshed out. Be bold, I guess.

But if any experts have more advice, I'd love it!

PS. Wow, you're a novelist? That's awesome! Joshua Choi 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, an excellent clear job. One of the best articles here.

I will take a look at this-- I do follow the subject, though from a distance. So far, what you say seems to be correct. There probably is a little more to say.: the separation of the proteostomes and deuterostomes in particular goes back some time now, and was originally based upon descriptive embryological evidence, first systematized by Libby Hyman in the 1950s. the organization of the larvae of the two groups are radically different. I will look for a good diagram. The sensational part of it to me is that her theory turned out to be firmly supported by molecular evidence. It would be good to explain what the molecular evidence is actually based on. This is the way to get the ontology into the discussion. (That ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a gross oversimplification of the 19th century--it applies only to embryonic forms--I think its a phrase to be avoided. I would add a further discussion of the way the development of all the animals is basically the same: the structure of the genes for segmentation and differentiation is parallel to the extent of definitively proving common origin. In this connection, some discussion of the origin of sex in the different group would also be appropriate.

I see some other omissions--motility needs to be discussed, and also parasitism, including the concept of the degeneration of function in parasites. The structure of the nervous system should be mentioned as well. Some idea of the paleontological basis of the evolution also needs to be discussed. And there has to be some mention of the relationship of all animals to other organisms--in particular the relationship with the fungi, which have a common ancestor with animals, not with plants.

I see only one outright error: starfish only appear to be radially symmetrical. If i remember the lectures correctly, they're bilateral, and the earliest embryonic forms one of the arms divides into two, giving the appearance of radial symmetry in the adult. .

An excellent source for much of this material is Wikipedia. At the moment the licenses are not 2-way compatible, but they will be in a few months when Wikipedia changes to CC by sa 3.0 dual licensing. Even now, they are compatible one way, from WP to Cz . I will copy over and improve some of the better parts of the key articles. Many of them have been done by very well informed amateurs, and checked by experts DavidGoodman 06:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)