Talk:Animal

insult

Under portrait of Carl Linnaeus is wrote: Carl Linnaeus, an animal himself, is known as the father of modern taxonomy. Anybody who has permission to edit the article, please remove the insult.Inloopas (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Deli nk (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(However, we are all animals, and pointing out that Linnaeus is an animal need not be regarded as an "insult". --Epipelagic (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC))

Content removal and lead degradation

@IiKkEe: why are you altering and removing good content (particularly in regards to the lead, and images) from this very well written and put together article? I can see one or maybe two of your points about the lead, but the lead in this version prior to your edits flows better. This article is a very broad topic, so the images as they were are likely pertinent. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: I have reverted to a reasonably correct version of the lead. "Vertebrates" and "invertebrates" are not subphyla; "invertebrates" are a totally informal group. You need to stop making so many changes, or else suggest a revised version here first, so others can comment. I don't get the impression you completely understand the subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead

I am happy to discuss my edits. Let's start with the first paragraph of the Lead:

An Animal' is an organism which is classified by taxonomy to the kingdom Animalia, based on the following characteristics. Animals are multicellular, and during development these cells differentiate into specialized tissues and organs. They are eukaryotic: their chromosomes are contained within a distinct nucleus. They are motile: they move spontaneously and independently. They are heterotrophs: they ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance. They use sexual reproduction (with some exceptions) to perpetuate their species, and during early embryonic development they pass through a stage called a blastocyst.

Comments: Sentence 1 - 1) I changed "any member of a group of biological organisms" to "an organism". The extra words don't seem to me to be necessary for the definition of animal. 2)I changed "certain shared characteristics" to "the following characteristics" to emphasize the characteristics that they are specific and about to be enumerated.

Sentence 2 - 1) I added that cells "differentiate into specialized and tissues and organs" because I understand that is one of the defining characteristics of animals 2) I gave a short definition of "eukaryotic", just as editors who came before me gave short definitions of "motile" and "heterophiles" just after this. Seems to be appropriate addition. 3) I added "sexual reproduction" and "blastocyst" to the list because I understand those too are defining characteristics of animals.

Please give me feedback on any of these 5 edits you don't agree with and why.

Regards!

IiKkEe (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For the first sentence, something closer to the version before any of your edits is better, e.g. {{An animal is an organism in the kingdom Animalia}}; "classified by taxonomy" is redundant – what else would it be classified by? It's not necessarily classified "by" the following characteristics; these days placement into a taxon is often based on molecular phylogenetic evidence rather than overt characteristics. So I would simply continue as the original did: An animal is multicellular .... Peter coxhead (talk)

@(talk) Thanks - your explanation is very helpful. The problem I am still having is with the word "certain": aren't the characteristics that define animals generally agreed upon by taxonomists? If so, shouldn't they be elucidated here?

Any thoughts about the 4 edits I made in sentence 2 which were deleted? They still seem to be useful additions to me. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC).

An explanation of the characteristics may be appropriate, but this lead was impressively short (and also nicely written) for such a broad article. Your sentence about animals being multicellular contains three wikilinks to disambiguation articles, which isn't more helpful to the reader than simply linking to multicellular. All of the sentences are wordy and flow less than the original lead, which is more harmful to an article than a lead that does not briefly cover every single one of the dozens of less important topics in the article. You may have a point with sexual reproduction, but this article was clearly written and organized by someone with an understanding of the subject matter and a clear intention to write an exemplary article. A change (let alone your 97 edits in less than a week) that prompts any sort of disagreement should be discussed.

I will continue discussing this, but I am confused as to why you are placing any of your edits back into the article. I think that this edit, for example, isn't clarifying anything but adds irrelevant detail that breaks up the flow of the section. If you really wanted to include the word "mitosis" in the article's body text, for example, it could be better served two paragraphs down from the introduction of zygote (the sentence you edited): "A zygote initially develops via mitosis into a hollow sphere, called a blastula, …" where differentiation is already mentioned. But mitosis is also not a characteristic of just animals, so let's not discuss this specific change. – Rhinopias (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Status of first paragraph of current Lead

I starting editing the first paragraph of the Lead 5 days ago without first looking at the history of its evolution. I have now done that, and think additional edits to the current version would improve it.

To share a bit of what I've discovered, here's some excerpts from 2010:

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa.

Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and are multicellular (although see Myxozoa), which separates them from bacteria. They have an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae (some sponges are capable of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking rigid cell walls. All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals. (end excerpt)

I would like to reinsert some of this material into the current Lead. I will do it one bit at a time with explanation, and welcome reversions with explanation if any think a reversion is warranted.

Regards IiKkEe (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I read this section after replying to the section above. I don't believe that we have reached a consensus for any of your edits. This article receives an average of 9,000 views per day, and I don't think it's logical to treat the lead like we currently are. I just edited the first sentence to reduce verbiage and fix the style of "Animalia" as this article is also the kingdom's article.

I don't think that such a detailed explanation of how animals differ from other organisms is appropriate in the lead (or at least the first paragraph) as a summary of the article, but perhaps in a current or new subsection of Characteristics or elsewhere. A list of characteristics seems more appropriate to me, but perhaps others will disagree. I do appreciate the inclusion of "mostly" or some variant prior to the characteristics beyond eukaryotic, as there are exceptions for most (or all?). The sentence about the blastula is interesting, but perhaps it can be easily mentioned along with a mention of sexual reproduction.

I can probably write up some drafts tomorrow, but I would very much prefer it if we reverted to the version on August 17 while we reach consensus because of the visibility of this article. I'm not at all saying it was perfect, but it would be more stable than the current. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright well, editing has continued but I retract my statement about reverting the lead. I incorporated ideas that were previously in the lead into the recent live version. Keeping sexual reproduction and the blastula mention is an important point. I hope that my shortening of the first paragraph length's by removing the explanations about each animal characteristic and placing the weight of that explanation into the wikilinks makes sense. Same with the mentioning of the animal groups; I made it just phyla instead of randomly chosen lower taxa in parentheses, and combined the symmetry vs. vertebrate/invertebrate paragraphs by making it one paragraph on body plan as the original lead alluded to but didn't connect to the list of animals beyond vertebrate/invertebrate. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rhinopias (talk) I apologize for continuing to edit rather than discussing your above responses to my postings: I just now noticed them, 2 days after you posted them. I assume you are OK with the current article: if I do a future edit and you don't like it, delete it and give me the reason, and we can discuss it here. And if you are OK with it, "thank" me - I'm not looking for a compliment, rather it's a great way to let me know you have read it and you're OK with it. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

.== Lead, paragraph 3 == This paragraph contains a list of around 30 animals. About six years ago, there was no list; in Aug 2013 there was a list of 5; it has grown to a complete list of all vertebrate and invertebrate groups with additional subgroups and examples. Relative to the other paragraphs, this seems overly detailed for a Lead.

What about just saying in the Lead that animals can be divided into vertebrates and invertebrates, and move the remaining details and examples to the section "Classification by vertebral type"? Anyone have a vote? I'm undecided. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Section on "Classification by body symmetry"

This section uses the term "Non-bilaterian" for "Asymmetric" and makes no mention of "radial symmetry"'. Anyone care to edit this secion? (@(talk)IiKkEe (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Homologous

please change ((homologous)) to ((Homology (biology)|homologous)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:e6b0:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead 4th paragraph

Looking at the two sentences in this paragraph: I'm not clear on what the difference is between "The animal kingdom emerged as a clade..." and "Most known animal phyla appeared...". My guess is they are both referring to the same thing: the first appearance of animals in evolution. The first sentence is a cladistic statement, and the second is a Linnaean statement.

But should we say that animal life began as a phylum or a clade? Or that early animals are classified as a phylum or a clade?

Here's the scheme: how much of this should be included in the Lead?

.

Opisthokonta	Holomycota Fungi Opisthosporidia Cristidiscoidea Nucleariida Fonticulida Holozoa Teretosporea Mesomycetozoa Corallochytrium Filozoa Filasterea Apoikozoa Choanoflagellatea Animalia

How about this edit: "Animals appeared in the fossil record as a marine species during the Cambrian explosion about 542 million years ago. The earliest animals evolved from the Apoikozoa" (ie leave out "phylum" and and "clade" and "choanoflagellatea" without losing the main idea.)

Comments are welcomed. IiKkEe (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ctenophora basal /epitheliozoa/Eumetazoa/Parazoa

The latest research suggests ctenophora are the basalmost animals, actually with "full" support, as opposed to , which is substantially less resolved, especially in the surrounding clades. Of course this has been a discussion since the Ryan et al(2013) paper, but it really seems like ctenophora is basal. Feel free do discuss.

This leaves us with the naming of the Porifera + Parahoxozoa clade. The closest thing to this clade I know of is parazoa. Before ctenophora basal, it was already realized that the higher animals emerged within Parazoa. With this knowledge, in Cladistics you can either take the stance of rejecting parazoa as a valid clade or you can include the emerged clade (dramatically increasing the scope). This is a normal process when groups turn out to be paraphyletic stem groups. For lack of a better available name, the last option can be taken. Before ctenophora basal, including the emerged clade would have resulted in parazoa as synonymous with metazoa, rendering parazoa obsolete or superfluous. However, after ctenophora this is not the case anymore.

Also eumetazoa, now without ctenophora, which originally did not include placozoa, can be used closer to its original meaning, and become equivalent to the planulozoa rather than e.g. the Parahoxozoa/Epitheliozoa.

The Epitheliozoa hypotheses and Eumetazoa hypotheses (see placozoa) both more ore less hold true, as long as ctenophora is removed from the discussion there.

Jmv2009 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Things move fast, the above is now historic (unless ctenophora is seen as basal again).Jmv2009 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

.