Talk:Animal/Archive 3

I noticed we have a paragraph on animals as model organisms, and I do not think it makes sense in this general page about the taxon. While certainly an important part of how humans deal with animals, we do not have paragraphs about other, much more widespread uses of animals such as their use as food, for example. I think this is right, since the focus is about animals as a taxon. Plus, not all model organisms are animals. Since we have an article on model organism, I think we are safe in removing the paragraph from here. --cyclopia^speak! 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there should certainly be a section on human interactions with animals, and scientific usage is a part of that. The topic of 'Animal' is broad and not purely taxonomic, so what we need here is a summary of

Animals in culture (where 'culture' is in the broad sense, i.e. not just high literary culture but food, science and so forth). I note in passing that the 'History of classification' is also part of the interaction with humans section that the article needs. Chiswick Chap (talk

) 08:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To save faffing about, I've boldly replaced the old section which represented a highly unbalanced (even POV) view of animals in culture, with a far broader summary from

Animals in culture. Hope that suits. It's richly linked and cited, as befits a brief summary of an enormous area. Chiswick Chap (talk

) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks, this makes much more sense. --cyclopia^speak! 14:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The current "Number of living species" sections needs updating in several ways. The uncited first paragraph claims that animals can be divided into "two broad groups", but vertebrates are just one subphylum, and the invertebrates are paraphyletic, not a great start. The table claims to list "each major animal subgroup" but includes the horseshoe crabs, a single arthropod family with only 4 species. I shall rework the table with columns for phylum and class; I hope to add a few more of the larger phyla; and I propose to drop "invertebrate" altogether. I shall also make the table sortable so it is slightly more informative. Oh, and the section title should probably be "Diversity". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: yes, this is definitely needed. One point about the table, "crustaceans" are now problematic as a class, because they are paraphyletic w.r.t. insects. Maybe this doesn't matter, but the column is headed "Class". Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Malacostracans it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I do not have much time but I noticed, while the article surely improved a lot, that there is something problematic in the table of diversity:

1 I notice that Crustacea has been replaced by Malacostraca, but Malacostraca are only a sub-clade of Crustacea, see phylogenetic trees in Pancrustacea for an example. There is nothing wrong in writing "Crustacea (excluding Insecta)" or something like that. Isolating Malacostraca seems totally arbitrary.

Well, since we were only illustrating classes for the Arthropods, I've removed the column. For the record, these (including Malacostraca) were among the largest classes in any taxon, but just Phyla is simpler and cleaner.

2 What are the sources for the habitat etc. columns? It seems to me a bit

WP:OR. For example, why for Insecta parasitic has "many", and linking to a very specific arbitrary subset of parasitic insects? Why no mention of freshwater Cnidaria, while one of the most famous cnidarian model organisms is freshwater (Hydra (genus)

)?

The parasitic wasps number over 500,000 species, seems well worth mentioning, I've added a ref. Just missed off mentioning the (few) species of freshwater cnidaria, that's all. I've checked all the figures against sources, and they weren't bad; I've added a ridiculous number of refs, and documented some of the many inconsistencies between them.

3 We should perhaps have a better discussion of the number of species, which is discussed with a large range of estimates in the scientific literature (see e.g. this).

4 Related to the previous point: the numbers for Platyhelminthes contradict themselves, with 29,500 species total, of which >40,000 parasitic (both numbers with a reference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.63.127.21 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you think? Thanks a lot for your work!--cyclopia^speak! 12:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't really want to get into all that methodology in this kind of article, but I've mentioned it now with the PLOS ref, and illustrated some of the 'diversity' between authors in the matter of guesstimates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying, and for your work.--cyclopia^speak! 16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: the list of phyla may be better suited for the body and just linked to from the infobox. Honestly, with #Phylogeny being so flushed out I'm not totally sure it's necessary at all. Could just all be moved to Lists of animals#By taxonomical classification (which is linked to at #Phylogeny already)? Rhinopias (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I do know it's a great deal shorter and more up to date than it was a week ago. Do people not expect to see it in the infobox? Or maybe collapse it. If we want it in the text then it should be as additional cladograms, I was considering doing that anyway, but they take up a good bit of room. And btw the Lists of animals is out of date too. @Rhinopias: do you think the Phylogeny section should be shortened further? I've already trimmed a fair bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Aha – much better idea. I added a collapse template; feel free to change the parameters. I do think that the cladogram pretty sufficiently covers the scope of the article. Any further elaboration seems more appropriate on other articles. Unless there are competing viewpoints that aren't represented? I very much like the clean look, but I suppose that notes could be added after some of the bigger lineages to clarify their contents, like after Deuterostomia putting "(includes the chordates)" or something?

There may be some slightly detailed stuff in #Phylogeny, but I think it makes sense for this to be a larger section. I can read through the section/article soon because I really haven't yet, just noticing random things in an unorganized manner! Rhinopias (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better in the infobox. Do please read Phylogeny and tell me what you think. I'll update the Proto/Deutero bit, it needs it, and I'll extend the cladogram slightly: ideally it would include the major phyla to make things a bit more recognisable, but it mustn't become too enormous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been able to spend much time on wiki in the last few days. Your expansions and changes are great – cladogram extension was definitely necessary to show more phyla. My time should free up a little after today! Rhinopias (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we're almost there - the article reads well, covers the main points, doesn't startle me with glaring errors, does some kind of justice to a rich history, and is solidly cited. I believe it is also a great deal more approachable with simpler language, more diagrams and photographs, and more in the way of overview. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Section #Characteristics seems to focus on what separates animals from other organisms, but should #Structure elaborate a little on anatomy? (Discussing range of forms... probably just tie in diversity of phyla. Anatomy#Animal tissues may be a good small selection though.) And an overview section be added on physiology (besides repro/dev or that can be made a subsection)? Maybe using a few key points from Insect physiology, Fish physiology, and Human body. The physical structure of animals is just very different from the other kingdoms, and the article already focuses heavily on animals from a scientific perspective. Rhinopias (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thinking about the opening sentence of the section (Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things) I'm not sure it makes sense to include detail that is beyond defining characteristics. Maybe "Body form" could be a small subsection of #Diversity? Or we just add a sentence linking to other articles that elaborate! Rhinopias (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's very little we can properly say there, and the section should certainly be limited to defining characteristics. It's hard to see what can be said about body form that applies to sponges, starfish and arrow worms, other than going over the diversity and phylogeny again: indeed, bauplan is virtually a synonym for phylum (or superphylum). But by all means polish a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what you've added to #Bilaterian animals is great. I'm not sure how this would be expanded much more without being too much for this general of a subject. You're right, the whole of #Phylogeny should give readers an understanding of body forms – it's also visible well in the cladogram. I also hadn't read #Ecdysozoa yet which also touches on some. I had this thought very late last night... Rhinopias (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Animal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

AS IS POSTED: (second paragraph, forth sentence) "Most modern animal phyla became clearly established in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion around 542 million years ago."

This statement is incorrect because the Cambrian was a period that extended from 542 million years ago to 488 million years ago - a period of 54 million years. The assertion that "most modern phyla became clearly established" is misleading. Today we recognize 33 distinct animal phyla. The Cambrian "Explosion" produced about 13 animal phyla. As stated the Cambrian was an interval of 54 million years. To say that animal phyla became established "during the Cambrian explosion around 542 million years ago." is misleading at best. There were none to almost no phyla at 542 million years ago (the base of the Cambrian). Phyla appeared at various times during the Cambrian with an especially rich appearance between 510 and 505 million years ago - an interval of 5 million years.

CHANGE TO: "A large number of modern animal phyla became clearly established in the fossil record as marine species during the "Cambrian Explosion" lasting from 542 million years ago to 488 million years ago - a period of 54 million years." OptoDave (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not everyone agree with my attempts to improve the phylogenetic tree. But please don't call it inaccurate, and don't visit my talk page to post numerous false accusations about edit warring and the rest of the list; "Could you please stop trying to push through your personal point-of-view, against a clear consensus, by edit-warring. This is unacceptable and disruptive."

The deuterostoms consist of two extant groups; Ambulacraria and Chordata. Click on the Chordata hyperlink, and you enter the Chordata article. Click on the Echinoderm hyperlink, and it takes you to the echinoderms article. Pupils and kids, and even some adults for that matter, may want to know what groups the chordates consist of, but unless they read the whole echinoderm article, they will miss the hemichordates. By replacing Echinodermata with Ambulacraria, it solves the problem. The effort was obviously not appreciated, possibly because it was desired that the hyperlink should reflect the image next to it for all I know.

Then I noticed the error regarding chordates. It says "Chordata and allies". Sorry, but that is wrong. Chordates don't have any allies in this context, because all chordates are actually chordates. If they have any deuterostome allies, it is the Ambulacraria, which is already located on their own branch on the tree. There is an image of a fish next to it, which is a vertebrate and sometimes all are familiar with, so to make it more accurate Chordata was replaced with Vertebrata, which also justified the "and allies" part, but the hyperlink would still take you to the previous Chordata which lists all the chordate groups. And since I was already editing, I decided to let the name Echinodermata stay, since it is something everyone is familiar with, but changed the hyperlink for the reasons mentioned above. This can be a problem if a specific group contains many subgroups, but that was not the case here.

So there you have it. I made an attempt to improve the article, and my edit was not reverted, but reweritten. An error was then noticed, I fixed it and made an attempt to make everybody happy. To separate attempts to edit, and I'm accused of edit warring, amongst other things. If you have decided this is how you want the article to look like, then so be it. But don't jump to conclusions, as there are better ways to have approach other editors. Silbad (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the Chordates label, which I've fixed. Echinodermata is a far more recognisable label than Ambulacraria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "animal" is used in several senses (see e.g. here). It's not "incorrect" to use one that means "non-human", just a different definition.

@

Doesn't colloquial usage of "animals" mean non-human mammals? (Not bugs, slugs, birds, etc.) Hcobb (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiii Bhavesh 2343 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The origins of the Animalia are rightly stated to be disputed, but the statement is now being supported by more and more primary research sources, not ideal: a seventh source has just joined the list. A well-known editor once said that a list of 6 refs was a sure sign of trouble. Maybe he was right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Pruning is called for. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Which animal is sister to the rest of animals is probably the most prestigious in all of animal research. Indeed strongly disputed.

I like this one best : Feuda, Roberto; Dohrmann, Martin; Pett, Walker; Philippe, Hervé; Rota-Stabelli, Omar; Lartillot, Nicolas; Wörheide, Gert; Pisani, Davide (December 2017). "Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals". Current Biology. 27 (24): 3864–3870.e4.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.008

.

As far as I recall it used the Whelan data set (Whelan had claimed Ctenophora sister), recoded it, and found Porifera-sister. But there are other articles popping up where sometimes some gene or mechanism indicates Ctenophora sister. Porifera-sister has been the traditional view, so it should be possible to find secondary sources claiming that, but that doesn't mean it's not disputed anymore. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, what we need then is a secondary source that says it's disputed, and summarizes the dispute, i.e. it does not just take one primary side or another (that's pretty much the essence of being secondary, actually, and it's what the encyclopedia always needs. We don't need primary sources that one editor "likes best". Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, I've located a recent review paper - Giribet 2016. Such papers will always be a little older than the latest primary sources, by definition - reviews need primary sources to compare. Wikipedia will always be a little older than such secondary review sources - it needs secondary sources to summarize, so it's a tertiary source. The encyclopedia is not a news feed, and is required to take a neutral point of view, so we are explicitly meant not to side with the latest opinion from the newest primary paper. Even citing primary papers is a little suspect; basically, we can use their literature review (secondary) but should avoid their primary research content. I've therefore replaced the seven refs with one citation to Giribet 2016. When a newer review appears in a year or two, of course we can use that. Hope this is clear and agreeable to everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot to agree with, but not all. There is indeed little value with going with the latest article when/as this strategy proves to gives random, unstable results. On the other hand, neutrality can not be maintained in the face of preponderance of literature pointing one way. I think most scientists feel the Diploblasts(granting Triploblasts)/Eumetazoa is the more likely scenario at this point. Eumetazoa is still strongly present in the literature/has not been stripped from the literature, despite the uncertainties. This is what the current paragraphs are suggesting. [4]. The question is probably more, at what point do favor one side? How often do you accept being "ultimately" wrong? 30-70? 51-49? 10-90%? Probably most proposed groupings have been proven ultimately factually wrong, but still provided value in describing the predominant view of the time. One can discuss about the types of secondary sources (newspaper, secondary articles accompanying the primary articles, review articles). Using only classification review papers in an inflexible classification system also can result in retardation of showing the predominant point of view, as having it wrong has created havoc later. E.g. homo "genus" emerging in Australopithecus "genus"... Land plants "divisions" emerging in Charophyta "divisions". I think when there is strong contention, there is also value to showing the strongest primary sources on both sides. In any case, is there a preponderance here?

@

WP:PSTS

, etc. There's no problem in using primary sources to supplement reliable secondary sources. There is a problem in using primary sources instead of secondary sources.

Yes, WP policies can result in retardation of showing the predominant point of view. But Wikipedia is

not news; it does not aim to be the most up-to-date, but to summarize established knowledge. I find the constraints frustrating sometimes, but we must follow policies. Peter coxhead (talk

) 09:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The key point, which seems still not to have been taken fully on board, is that we are working on an encyclopedia, not on a scientific paper, and we are governed by Wikipedia policy, not by research principles. There is some overlap (both editors and scientists are bound to write verifiable statements, for instance) but the whole direction is different. Scientists intend to innovate, it's their job. We intend not to. They are keenly interested in the latest research findings, even if those are wrong. We are suspicious of those findings and shouldn't use them until confirmed and discussed by later scientists.

Talk of being ultimately right is wholly misguided: we never know that (and nor, actually, do scientists, though of course being wrong is easy enough).

Wikipedia policy on verifiability is quite clear on this: we write not "truth" (whatever that is, see Hume, Berkeley, Kant, etc) but what can be verified. Please go and spend some time thinking about this: you will see that verifiability is exactly the right criterion for an encyclopedia, objective truth being unavailable to mere mortals. Chiswick Chap (talk

) 09:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually the longest animal in modern history on record is the The bootlace worm (Lineus longissimus) http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-animal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Virion123 has added taxonomic detail of unranked clades to the taxobox. My personal view is that analysis down to phylum level is quite sufficient, as there are already over 20 of those, without troubling the reader with a longer list to an unspecified (unspecifiable?) level of detail. I suggest we limit the list to phyla. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the additions are at or above phylum level. The addition of craniates seems reasonable as this is the group most readers will be familiar with. Others such as the Cambroernida and the Vetulocystida are at least phylum level. All these groups are referenced (mostly from Nature or Science) answering Chiswick Chap's comment earlier. Concerning the position of the Chaetognatha. I am not sure that the position presently in the table is correct as this taxon seems to be fairly basal within the Spirilia. A reference here to their position in the Gnathifera would be useful. Virion123 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

All right, I'll leave it. The article is about Animalia as a whole and we should not be getting into tangles about sub-sub-structure in the taxobox. The Chaetognatha are a bona-fide phylum and as far as I'm concerned a simple list of phyla in the taxobox is sufficient for the task. As soon as you try to get into structure you're into endless phylogenetic debates which we simply don't need in a taxobox. Normally all we give is the structure above the title group (Animalia) and where the group is big, some kind of list beneath that. Alternatively we can just say "see text", which is also a common solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. I have not included any taxon below phylum except for the craniates which I think is a reasonable exception. The change from Phyla to Taxon in the title reflects the structure of the taxobox better in my view. Concerning Chaetognatha. These are a valid phylum. Its just their position within the protosomia is - I think - not quite settled. The taxobox lists this phylum as being within the Gnathifera which I'm not sure is correct. It could well be. A reference would be nice. Virion123 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well if the taxobox just contains a list of phyla, as I strongly believe it should, then it doesn't have to address where individual phyla may belong. I think that's as it should be: we're rather sure of what exists, less so of placement. We're not here to track phylogenetic disputes, especially not in taxoboxes, but to report on "the main facts" from reliable secondary sources. The position of the Chaetognaths may more appropriately be dealt with in that article, and perhaps in the Protostome article, not here. Virion123 I strongly object to your recent reversion in the taxobox (barring any accidental deletion of phyla): we should have a flat list. Actually on reflection I'd go further: the list is way too long for a taxobox, scrolling far below the bottom of the average screen, and we should just list the superphyla. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The taxobox was out of date by some years. For an article of this importance this I think should be corrected. As far as I can make out your main objection seems to be the inclusion of extinct phyla: I could be wrong. These are simply part of the story of evolution of animals. If it would make you happy I will remove any reference to sub phyla. Virion123 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I will be glad if you remove all sub-phyla, yes. I am concerned that the list is a) too long (which removals will assist); b) too complex c) too controversial for the taxobox setting, which should be stable. In addition, as I've explained above, I think we should have very little detail below Animalia as it's just duplicating material in the article, or worse conflicting with it, and it isn't necessary as all we need there is the phylogeny above Animalia - the point is not to repeat everything in every animal article, but to deal with local bits of the tree locally. I do hope this is now clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The subphyla have been removed. Concerning conflict with the article. As the current taxobox is based on the most up to date information available, if there is a conflict that you are aware of in the text, it might be useful to update the text. Have you had any luck locating a reference for the chaethgathia's position yet? Virion123 (User talk:Virion123 talk) 14:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the suggestion about limiting the taxobox to just superphyla, I for one am not keen on the idea. But I am happy to conceed that there is at least some merit in that suggestion. I would like to see what others think. Virion123 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

At least it's a bit shorter now, thanks. I'm busy on other things and am not hunting for Chaetognatha citations; as you know from the above, I'd rather have a simple structure without such things, indeed without the long list of phyla really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I would like to hear from other editors about your suggestion to reduce the taxobox to just suphyla. That would be a pretty short list. I have prepared this list so you and other can see what it would look like. Kimberella is probably a mollusc but its place is not decided yet. This one could probably be removed Virion123 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Porifera

Subkingdom Eumetazoa

• Ctenophora
• Placozoa
• Cnidaria
• †Trilobozoa
• Bilateria (unranked)
  • †Kimberella
  • Xenacoelomorpha
  • †Proarticulata
  • Nephrozoa (unranked)
  • Superphylum Deuterostomia
  • Protostomia
    • Ecdysozoa
    • Lophotrochozoa

Thank you. That looks perfect for the 'below' part of a taxobox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why you object to the Tully monster being included. There is no doubt that this animal existed. There are dozens of fossils that confirm its existence. There is a LOT of debate as to which phylum it belongs in. But since you seem to feel very strongly about this one I will let it go. The rest of the taxobox seems to be pretty up to date now. This of course may change at new information becomes available but it is likely to be stable for quite some time. The only outstanding issue that I have is the placement of the chaetogathia. I will get around to finding a reference for these and see if the matter has been decided yet since you are too busy to look for one.Virion123 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: I prefer a shorter list of higher-rank constituent taxa, especially when none of them are redlinks. As for Tullimonstrum, I can't say I recall many taxoboxes that list incertae sedis taxa. USUALLY if there are incertae sedis taxa, then they are listed and discussed in the detailed text of the article, and not within the taxobox. There could hardly be a more dramatically unplaced taxon than Tullimonstrum, but until there is a clear consensus as to how to treat it, it doesn't seem right to have it in a taxobox (and, realistically, it's far more likely that it will prove to be an unconventional member of a conventional phylum, rather than a phylum unto itself). Dyanega (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In the taxonmomy box: You should add Choanozoa in between Filozoa and Animalia. This is a newly identified clade, but it needs to be put in to regain consistency with the Filozoa page. EMS | Talk 15:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is true on all computers, but for me the collage image in the taxobox seems to have the wrong links when I mouse over the images. For example, when the cursor is over the crocodile it says "Echinoderm", and so on, with each image linking to the one to the right (ant the rightmost column lacking links entirely). Could someone who is more skilled with image links than I am please fix this? --Qualiesin (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted. Reverted the image change with 926766818. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there has been some adjustments to the phylogenetic tree (again). If correct, it also means that all members of Spiralia that branched off before the mollusks, and all members of the Ecdysozoa that branched off before the arthropods and velvet worms, don't have circulation or respiration systems: ^[1] 84.214.101.199 (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

‎Jts1882 - this article is explicitly NOT about humans. All zoologists, indeed all biologists agree of course that humans are part of the animal kingdom, but there are many articles here about humans (several million, in fact) and this isn't one of them. The statement "The study of non-human animals is known as zoology." is true as written; zoology research, courses and textbooks steer clear of the human sciences. This is not a religious or philosophical position (we're well aware of the animal nature of H. sapiens), just a practical one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I concur that the article is not just about humans. But the statement "The study of non-human animals is known as zoology" is very much flawed. Zoology is the study of animals, it is not just about non-human animals, but humans as well. We definitely study humans in zoology. Chhandama (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No we don't, but never mind, that's a non-terminating loop. Please read the previous sentence in the lead section, which says all that needs to be said. I've reworded the sentence you've objected to, since other readers will presumably eventually fall over it in the way you have just demonstrated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Egad, yes we do. I don't know what kind of university curriculum you are based on, but in my part of the world the curriculum of zoology traditionally includes physiology, genetics, endocrinology, immunology, and all that stuffs that are basically about humans. Simply replacing with "group" does not make it any less ambiguous – it rather sounds odd. Any good old zoologist will agree that zoology is the study of animals. Chhandama (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Zoology is the scientific study of animals. This is a standard definition. This article is about animals in general, not one about all animals except humans. It's not as if the anatomy, physiology and evolution of animals doesn't apply to humans, so why would it make any sense to explicitly exclude humans. Even if the article excludes humans due to anthropocentric reasoning, it doesn't change the defintion of zoology. I also don't think being scientifically accurate is fairly characterised as having a bee in ones bonnet.   Jts1882 | talk  11:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I already removed the offending phrase, guess you didn't see given the edit conflict. See my comment above; the previous sentence in the lead already explained the situation, so the offending sentence was redundant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

[Why would anybody consider my edit as an "offending phrase"? (Other than creationism!) In science it is an accepted fact that humans are animals, and for that matter we should never feel offended nor glorified. Chhandama (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)]

While the lead mentions the colloquial use of the term and the etymology section explains that this use is non-scientific, the scope of the article as presently written does "not" explicitly exclude humans. As an aside, while there are indeed many biographic articles about humans, there are also many articles about individually-named non-human animals as well (eg.

Luna (killer whale)). This article is not about named individuals, but the collective features of all the members of the animal kingdom. Current zoology research, courses and textbooks certainly do "not" steer clear of including humans in their scope. In fact, the opposite is correct. As a university student of biology, the class lectures of "Animal Form and Function (BIO2135)" and the textbook used (Zoology by Miller and Harley) both explicitly included humans as examples of the evolutionary development of animals. As such, the edit to the article by Chhandama of the "offending sentence" appears to have been the most correct. Loopy30 (talk

) 13:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. The second of the two sentences has already been edited. The passage now reads "The kingdom Animalia includes humans, but in colloquial use the term animal often refers only to non-human animals. The study of the group is known as zoology." It seems we all agree about the first sentence; and the second one is completely neutral to avoid contradicting the first one, and surely entirely unexceptionable, so I'd have thought the matter resolved, frankly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I do not agree that you have resolved anything by further changing the wording. In fact, it appears that you have taken a precise and accurate statement ("The scientific study of animals is known as zoology") that two other editors have added and changed it to a more ambiguous version ("The study of the group is known as zoology") to avoid a perceived "contradiction". To help me understand why you consider your edit to be preferable, could you explain why you consider there to have been a contradiction, and how the revised sentence better defines the term zoology? Loopy30 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Chhandama's statement was clear and accurate, concise and unambiguous. The current phrasing is less accurate (has dropped the scientific) and potentially ambiguous (using group after mention of alternative use of the term). Yet twice the clearer statement has been reverted without a good reason (the scope of the article doesn't change the definition of zoology).   Jts1882 | talk  08:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Zoology includes humans. The study of nonhuman members of the kingdom Animalia is called veterinary medicine 172.58.174.227 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph should start as follows: Most animals are

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

This edit request to Animal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Doahbeck (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
i want to make it better

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence in the "characteristics" section states that protists are unicellular. This is not true, as there are many examples of multicellular protists, such as kelps. The Wikipedia page for protists includes multicellular organisms, as well. Snarpsnip (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

removed; I suspect the definition of protozoa/protista may have changed several times since that was written. (Pretty sure my biology teachers didn't think kelp was protozoan in those days!). Happy New Year. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Phylum table says there are 29,500 Platyhelminths, of which >40,000 are parasites. There cannot be more parasitic species of a phylum than there are species. I'm afraid I cannot find a reference with a definitive number for either species total or parasites, but clearly at least one of the numbers in this article is incorrect. I suspect that the figure for parasites is correct, based on the source given, but that the species figure is unreliable. I suggest you remove the species figure. Oliveraceae (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet by Wikipedia policies both are reliably sourced. The parasite source is earlier, possibly before the division of the phylum, but this clearly needs a newer and more comprehensive source. I'll have a look tomorrow if someone (hopefully) doesn't beat me to it. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A search for number of Plathelminthes finds several estimates like 20,000 or 25,000. These seem in line with the first source (Zhang et al, 2013). The parasite source has the peculiar phrasing "estimates of species numbers are meant to be realistic minimum numbers" and refers to another earlier source on parasite diversity. My guess is that realistic minimum numbers means some attempt to estimate total species rather than just described species, in which case the 40,000 may be consisitent, but is not a useful number without also knowing the number of non-parasitic species. A proportion of parasitic species might be a more useful number, e.g. there about 30,000 species, about a quarter/third/half being parasitic. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The second source says it is adapted from Poulin and Morand 2004. Presumably this 2014 book is an updated edition. If so, it states there are a "minimum number" of ">40,000" species of platyhelminthes (sourced to Brooks and McLennan 1993 and Rodhe 1996). Given our article describes the table as "described extant species", we should probably remove the >40,000 as it specifically includes undescribed species. The number of described parasites should probably be roughly 24,000, which is Platyhelminthes minus Turbellaria, although I don't have a source on hand. CMD (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The table isn't exclusively described extant species. Some of the sources other than Zhang (2013) use other methods and these are used for estimates of numbers for land, sea, etc. I don't think we can get a totally consistent set of numbers using multiple references. However, that new edition you found seems to indicate that the >40,000 includes the free living species (footnote to table 1.1 saying "taxon also contains free-living specie"s) so the number may not belong in the parasite column.

I found a new source giving 3,000–6,500 for free-living Platyhelminhtes and 4,000–25,000 for parasitic ones^[1], which also states 77% are parasitic and has a table with a number of other estimates (on p13). I think by including different estimates the reader can see that there are differences of opinion. Perhaps a footnote stating that the numbers may not add up due to different methodologies in the estimates would also be helpful. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't access Zhang (2013), but our text specifically notes the table is restricted to "described extant species" in both the text and caption. It's worth giving estimates, but combining described species and estimated species in a single table is not something that presents a clear picture to readers. Your new source for example gives those numbers as the numbers of "reported species", and it is misleading to present this alongside the >40,000 number, which is explicitly not limited to reported species. Those two estimates aren't differences of opinion, they're measuring entirely different things. The text already notes that there will be far more undiscovered species than those listed in the table. CMD (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Response to edit) My reading of the 2014 book is that the 40,000 number only includes the parasitic Classes, as the number is placed against the Class rather than the Phylum. CMD (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I've struck out that comment.

The numbers in the table from Zhang(2013) are for described extant species, but I don't think we can say that about the other numbers. Take the molluscs, the source giving a 107,000 total is also used for land, sea and freshwater numbers, which add up to more than Zhangs 85,000 described species. But as both numbers are given for the total, it should be clear to a reader who is paying attention to the numbers. However, the >40,000 number doesn't have a corresponding total platyhelminthes number, so maybe it is better to remove it now we have a newer source and estimate that is consistent with the Zhang numbers. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we either need to make the text line up with the table, or the table line up with the text. The reader should not have to figure out that something we say in the literal table description isn't actually true. Do you have access to the mollusc source to see how they come up with the numbers? If it's also an attempt to number described species, that would be in line with Zhang, but otherwise it doesn't make sense to include in the same table. CMD (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've found a source that indicates there may be "about 100,000 extant species of both free-living and parasitic forms" (Park et al. A common origin of complex life cycles in parasitic flatworms: evidence from the complete mitochondrial genome of Microcotyle sebastis (Monogenea: Platyhelminthes). BMC Evol Biol 7, 11 (2007)). Perhaps this is helpful, if the source satisfies the Wikipedia policies. It might allow you to retain the >40,000 parasites figure and it is also consonant with the idea that there are probably many undescribed species. I understand from what you have both written above that undescribed species are permitted as part of the total figure. This is the first interaction I have had with a Wikipedia article, beyond reading - please excuse any errors in protocol! Oliveraceae (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of a single better way to engage with Wikipedia protocol than to come to a talkpage and provide a source. The questions for this table are, should it show described species, total estimates, or both, and whatever the option chosen, how is this best conveyed to the reader? If there are 100,000 species of platyhelminthes, I very much suspect that there would be far more than 40,000 parasitic species, given the majority of platyhelminthes seem to be parasitic. Perhaps the source can be included as an example for undescribed species in the text either way. CMD (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oliveraceae: I agree with CMD, addressing issues with the article and providing sources on the talk page is a good approach to Wikipedia. Ultimately, within reason, what can be includes in articles is what editors (including you) agree to place in them. Park et al (2007) is one of the references mentioned in table 1.2 of Pandian (2020),^[1] along with two lower estimates. The text in Pandian (2020, p14) surprisingly implies the 100,000 is described species but I can't confirm this. Park et al (2007)] cites Littlewood (2006) which is in a book I can't access. Pandian (2020) says >77% are parasitic so this would also imply a high number of parasitic species.

@Chipmunkdavis: The mollusc estimates are "based on the probable number of living species". If we limit the table to described species many of the numbers in the other columns would also need removing. The chordates numbers are described species but very outdated (1996). The freshwater source (Balian et al 2008) is also based on described species. The possible solutions seem to be:

1. Remove all numbers not based on described species.
2. Indicate where species numbers are estimated, e.g. 4,000 (est.)
3. Restrict a total described species column to Zhang (2013) (with reference for column) and add another column for other estimates.

All need the text to be modified appropriately. Overall, I don't see why the numbers in table should be described species only, especially as we know the limitations of that number. I'm leaning towards option 2. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is not particularly that described species is better, but that mixing described and estimated species in the same table without clarification is misleading (hence the existence of this discussion). A variation on 2 might be to perhaps have described and estimated species for all phyla. I suppose a more fundamental question is, what is the purpose of this table? I can't really tell from looking at it. (For example, if it's to highlight the size of various phyla, then it probably shouldn't be ordered alphabetically.) CMD (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Photos within "In human culture" section".

There are three photos in the section In human culture, however they all depict a predation relationship, specifically as food or food/sport. Perhaps there can be a picture depicting a Mutualism/symbiotic relationship, such as a human with a pet. There was a picture of a guide dog here at one time, but that is less common than use of animals as companions. I'm not sure if the use of animals as pets is more common than their use as food. In the Western world it's probably about equal, but in developing countries pets (at least dogs and cats) are less common, but vegetarianism is more common outside of the Western world. In any case, I don't think all three photos should be depicting the same type of relationship.

I was going to replace File:Hebbuz.JPG with File:Nancy and Smokey in San Francisco.jpg, but thought I'd put it out for comment first. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Well, no, they aren't all about "predation": one is about food, sure (with a helping of commerce and a wave in the direction of animal husbandry); one is about the (ancient) symbiosis with working animals (with a helping of pets and hunting on the side); and one is about art and the history of art (with a gesture towards sea-fishing). The images fit the text rather well and cover, in a small space, a wide range of the many topics listed. A specifically "pets" image would be a significant narrowing of coverage: qua, worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the images depict multiple aspects of ethnozoology, however, I'm sure a zoologist and even an etholgist for that matter, would characterize the depictions as predation (or fallen prey). (Predation is when one animal kills and eats another animal.) All three images depict the use of non-human animals that have been killed by humans for food: the carcasses, obviously; the hunting dog depicts interspecies social predation (assuming the hunter throws table scraps to his dog); and the image of the painting is obviously a (meta)depiction of seafood. Yes, there is cooperation with regard to the relationship between the dog and the hunter, however, the photo specifically depicts the behavior of social predation. Also, the title of the section is "In human culture" so it's odd that no humans are shown together with non-human animals in any of the photos. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@

That doesn't make sense. The 'in culture' section is necessarily less "biological" in content and in language because its theme is the interaction of animals with human society. Biology itself has multiple levels; and the languages of biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, or indeed physiology would be wholly inapplicable to the section. As for tone, I wrote much of the text of both the articles, and the tone is carefully encyclopedic in both cases. The (hunting) dog is an image of ancient co-operation and companionship, being the first symbiosis between humans and any domesticated animal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Since humans are animals, the information in this section is a subtopic of ethology, which covers animal culture and feeding behaviors, and (with the current section title) more specifically ethnozoology. Since this is a scientific/biology article, the section should be written that way. Just about all of the areas currently touched upon in the section could be written that way.

I can see already that we're not going to reach a consensus here with just the two of us. I'm going to step away and leave this discussion open for others to comment. (I've changed the title of the thread to reflect the more general topic of discussion.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

One more thing... Here is a sample of what I'm talking about as a rewrite:

Humans have widely varied interactions with other animals. As omnivores, they often get a portion of their diet through predation or intermittent symbiotic parasitism. Up until the Neolithic Revolution, predation was almost exclusively via hunting and fishing. Today is it is most often by hunting marine species and via animal husbandry. Many species of fish are hunted while a smaller number of species are farmed. Invertebrates including cephalopods, crustaceans, and bivalve or gastropod molluscs are also hunted or farmed. Interaction may be mutualistic or commensal when animals are used by humans to assist with predation, such as the use of hunting dogs...

And the parts about, religion and pets can use the language of ethology and ethnozoology, etc. This is what I am proposing. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A recent announcement posits that Bicellum brasieri is a multicellular animal that is about one billion years old. If accepted, that will call for some changes in the Evolutionary origin section. Thoughts? - Donald Albury 18:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Or that it might be. It's certainly an amazing example of preservation. Perhaps we shouldn't tear up our zool. textbooks just yet. Maybe a small tweak once it's properly confirmed and discussed among other scientists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't rushed to edit the fossil in. I am sure alternate explanations will be offered soon. - Donald Albury 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the possible Tonian record for Otavia is very significant and should be mentioned in a PS section in the template. I don't know how to place the =PS thing in correctly, though. 760 Ma.

Kikiopae (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing should be "mentioned in the template" if it is not discussed and cited reliably in the main text, PS or otherwise, that is not the place to introduce "new" materials, as the lead is only a summary of the article. That does not mean merely that there is a news report about it; nor even that there is a single

WP:PRIMARY report about it. It means that there is a discussion of the quality of the evidence in a review article, which in its turn evaluates and cites the primary reports and concludes that the concept is at least on the balance of probabilities valid. Chiswick Chap (talk

) 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty reliably discussed in the main text as Otavia is indeed mentioned as a possibility. It's not a new thing to the page. Kikiopae (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The primary report by Brain et al (2012) is discussed in the review by Antcliffe et al (2014), which concludes that the evidence is insufficient to make the claim for oldest animal. The evidence doesn't meet any other their three criteria (including fossil age restraints) and they seem to suggest it is an non-biogenic artefact ("calciphosphate grains that have been pitted by sediment reworking"). The statement in the Otavia article that the affinities are disputed might be an understatement. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a problem with the Otavia article then if that's not mentioned. There's not really conclusive evidence for it not being a biological entity and sponges being that old isn't unreasonable. I'm not going to 'die on a hill' trying to prove it's a real animal, but should be mentioned in the header for sure. Kikiopae (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the new wording saying that animals are multicellular organism within the kingdom Animalia leave open the possibility that there might be unicellular forms within Animalia that are not considered animals? I think the meaning has been changed. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

At the moment we're simply back to where we were earlier in the month, barring the use of the word "within" which I don't specially object to. If you have a better suggestion then let's hear it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Jts1882 and Chiswick Chap, I hadn't wanted to cause any angst with my initial edit. My deletion of "multicellular" was an oversight. Mea culpa. Deleting "eukaryotic" is a different story. How necessary is that word to an understanding of what an animal is? Besides, are there any noneukaryotic animals? Deleting eukaryotic from the definition suffices an average reader's expectation of plainspoken wording i.e. the meaning of animal, whose cellular specifics aren't relevant to the intro. If this article constituted average readers' initial exposure to Wikipedia, they might well be scared off from reading further. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Kent, we're not asserting there are non-eukaryotic animals; we're giving readers who may half-remember or not know where to look the vital keywords they will need, and links to allow them to follow those words up quickly, i.e. this is both definitional (this is what animals are) and navigational (this is where you need to look). Important? Yes, extremely. Relevant? Definitely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Confession: I'd rarely encountered "eukaryotic" before this article and couldn't for the life of me recall what it meant without following the link. Yet, that ignorance hadn't hadn't dampened my understanding of what an animal is. So, I don't think average readers will feel lexicologically duped if that term is deleted from the lead.

Eukaryotic is a keyword regarding cellular structure, but eukaryotes are not unique to animals, and this article isn't primarily about cellular structure. I'm not claiming "eukaryotic" substantively harms the lead. Instead, it seems no more relevant to the lead than saying, e.g., "a chimp, is a eukaryotic species of great ape" or "cotton is a soft, fluffy staple fiber that grows in a eukaryotic boll." The term should be stricken from the lead sentence and put elsewhere to avoid undue (and potentially off-putting) emphasis to a highly technical term. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

While eukaryote does indeed refer to cell structure, it is the name of the major group of organisms that animals belong to. Being a eukaryote is fundamental to being a complex multicellular organism. Most articles on living organisms will refer to the broader group it belongs to prominently in the lede. The statement "an animal is a eukaryote" is the equivalent of "a chimp is an ape". In the chimp case you go to the ape article to find out more, here you are directed to eukaryote. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

An animal is a eukaryote. A tree is a eukaryote. ∴ An animal is a tree? Logically plausible but factually untrue. That's why I don't like "eukaryote" in the lead. It's beside the topical point of this article and needless to an understanding of organisms that walk, fly, swim, or otherwise crawl in an animal-like way. I've yet to meet anyone who, upon a first encounter with the term, "animal," wonders which type of cellular structure is involved. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

We have unicellular animals, like some Myxozoa   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but - definitionally speaking - that's beside the point of this article and off the topic of this thread. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

An animal is a eukaryote. A tree is a eukaryote. ∴ An animal is a tree? Logically plausible but factually untrue. A circle is a shape. A square is a shape. A circle is a square? Logically invalid, in any pragmatic sense.

Sessile animals exist, anchored to a substrate and incapable of moving from place to place. Kent, your lay understanding of an animal could stand to be better informed before you make more than minor changes to this article. For what it's worth, the Simple English article on animals also links to eukaryotes in the lead.

For others reading this, Kent is the author of a lexicon, and has acknowledged that much of his WP editing is motivated by a desire to bring the encyclopedia into conformance with his off-wiki text. For the most part, that may be harmless, but in cases like this, it can distort encyclopedic content.

Kent, if you choose to respond to this, kindly do so here on the article's talk page, where it may be easily seen by other interested eyes. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"A circle is a shape. A square is a shape. ∴ A circle is a square?" Logically plausible but factually invalid untrue. Logical validity or invalidity isn't a factor, same as my initial question, which was obviously rhetorical, not a conclusive. The point relates to definitional pragmatics: A square is a quadrilateral. A square is a parallelogram. ∴ A quadrilateral is a parallelogram? Logically plausible but factually untrue by definition. A parallelogram is a quadrilateral? Logically plausible and incidentally true by definition.

For others reading this, as Just plain Bill pointed out, "Kent is the author of a lexicon, and has acknowledged that much of his WP editing is motivated by a desire to bring the encyclopedia into conformance with his off-wiki text to provide clearly worded lead definitions for Wiki articles that are linked to the glossary of his off-Wiki textbook." Is that bit of trivial debris relevant to the topic of this thread? I think not. Forgive me for deigning to respond to such a pesky ad hominem attack, but the failure to accurately represent my overall interests called for correction, notwithstanding any pertinence to this thread. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

An animal is a eukaryote. A tree is a eukaryote. ∴ An animal is a tree? How does that follow logically? I very much doubt anyone reading the opening sentence will conclude animals are trees, so this reason for not mentioning eukaryote is weak. If someone can find an organisms that can walk, fly, swim, or otherwise crawl in an animal-like way that is not a eukaryote, then perhaps we should reconsider the importance of animals being in this group. The article should seek to inform people not pander to the most ignorant. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear to distinguish logical arguments from logical inferences. The definition, as it stands, applies to a Venus flytrap since Animalia is referenced but undefined. People who don't know that corals and sponges are animals (but who might know that they're eukaryotic) wouldn't be so informed by the definition --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion must be civil; it needs also to be well-informed about zoology, and to focus on assisting readers. Saying nothing but that animals = animalia in the key first sentence is plainly hopelessly inadequate. The core attributes of animals are that they are eukaryotic, however we explain this; multicellular (and we can have a footnote but not main text in the first sentence stating the unique derivative exception in the Myxozoa); heterotrophic (and the photosynthetic symbionts of corals don't contradict that); and overwhelmingly motile (and yes, we all know there are sponges, and secondarily sessile barnacles). We need to find a short plain way to phrase that. Let's work on this constructively, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As they stand now, the first two sentences pretty well cover all that, plainly and concisely, and have done for a while. The main point of this talk section seems to have been whether to drop "eukaryotic" from the lead, which ought to be a non-starter. Just plain Bill (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Eukaryotic certainly belongs up there. The unstated issue is, I believe, that since Google basically just uses the first sentence of articles, it needs to be pretty complete and definitional, something that is often awkward. In this case I think that having only two keywords in the first sentence is too little; but I certainly agree that cutting the first sentence down even further is moving in the wrong direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Would a semicolon splice of the first two sentences fix that? Does it need to be fixed? Just plain Bill (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To

holophyletic meaning, but never considered (on the contrary to some unicellular Myxozoa) to be animals (even if the first one is sometimes jokingly called "unicellular dog"). Petr Karel (talk

) 10:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exceptions prove the rule. On splicing to the second sentence, that won't easily work. We either rearrange slightly (beefing up the first sentence a little) or leave the whole thing alone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@

axiomatic set theory standpoint, a lead that says animals are multicellular organisms in the biological kingdom

Animalia excludes unicellular forms because multicellular is a limitation on an organism's membership in Animalia. Accordingly, since eukaryotic isn't limited to Animalia, including eukaryotic is superfluous to the lead here given how all living things that we generally encounter (i.e. without a microscope) are eukaryotic. However unicellular dogs might behave like animals, they're not animals under the definition here. I don't have an opinion on the merits; I'm just pointing out the conflict between what the article's definition asserts and what you've just asserted about unicellular eukaryotic pathogens being phylogenetical members of the kingdom Animalia.

So far my interest has been limited to arguing against eukaryotic in the lead. But now that I look at this tread's heading it's fair to ask, "Is a Venus flytrap a multicellular, eukaryotic organism within the biological kingdom Animalia?" I.e. it's multicellular and eukaryotic and an organism, but it's impossible to tell - except by arbitrary inference - whether it's an animal since Animalia is neither linked nor defined despite its reference in this article's lead. I hadn't intended to address that glaring definitional shortcoming in this thread, but the thread's title warrants mentioning it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Kent, you have free speech under Wikipedia's 317th amendment, but you're trying everybody's patience here. Please accept the clear consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Kent, you have free speech under Wikipedia's 317th amendment, but you're trying everybody's patience here. Please accept the clear consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I'm in no rush to surrender precision to patience as an apology for consensus. Yet, I'm willing to backpedal if you or anyone can accurately answer this: is the consensus that animal {A} intends the union of "multicellular" {M} and "eukaryotic" {E} such that A = {M ∪ E}, or does the definition intend the intersection of multicellular and eukaryotic such that A = {M ∩ E}, or even that multicellular and eukaryotic elements are evident in animals such that {M,E} ∈ A? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: All animals are multicellular eukaryotes but not all multicellular eukaryotes are animals. Animals are a subset of the intersection of Eukaryotes and MulticellularA⊂(M⋂E). Kardoen (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@

axiomatic set theory algorithms to identify and place lexical items into proper sets, but I didn't do it this case as I merely considered the grammar. Here's my mulligan: "Animals are {E,M} organisms in {A}, which excludes {P} and {U}" where P = plants and U = unicellular organisms. So, both animals and Animalia get defined in the same sentence. --Kent Dominic·(talk)

13:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Defining animalia is probably beyond the scope of the lede, it has to be understandable to people who are unfamiliar with the subject. Defining animals as multicellular eukaryotes that are not plants is far from complete, there are many multicellular eukaryotes that are neither animals, plants nor fungi. In the characterstics section a good definition is given, but is too long and in-depth for the lede. Kardoen (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

there are many multicellular eukaryotes that are neither animals, plants nor fungi: the problem is that this too depends on your definitions of all three terms "animal", "plant" and "fungus", all of which are problematic.

The reality is that modern taxonomic groups at this level are based on a particular understanding of the results of molecular phylogenetic analyses, where both the results and the interpretation of such analyses differ from source to source. After a group is identified in this way, characters may or may not be found which align with the molecular evidence, but molecules always win out.

So I don't believe that a completely accurate and simple definition can be given in the lead, any more than it can of "plant" or "fungus" or most other taxa around this level, but that animals are a subset of eukaryotes is a key part of any attempt at one. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

within/in/comprise

I had changed the wording to "Animals ... are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms that comprise the biological kingdom Animalia." This should achieve the goal of the lede, defining what animals are, without implying that there are "non-animal" organisms within animalia. However Just plain Bill changed this to "Animals ... are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms that in the biological kingdom Animalia." This again can be understood as implying the existence of non-animal organisms within animalia. Kardoen (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Comprise" is controversial. I believe it originally meant "include", but an opposite sense is creeping into popular usage, roughly meaning "consist of". I also believe Wikipedia is in the business of providing plain unambiguous text.

"organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia" seems plain and unambiguous to me. Someone understanding it to imply or entail anything more than "animals are classified in Animalia" is reaching beyond everyday reading comprehension, in my view. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comprise originally meant: composed of comprehensively. It is usually used when describing the whole unless specifically sated. I think it should be less ambiguous then using "in". Kardoen (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kardoen:The comedy/tragedy here is that "animal" is defined as an organism within Animalia, which has no definition. Without it, the animal definition is circular. Again, sorry I missed that until I tried to link Animalia to its proper article. Oops. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill: Totally agreed, but with a caveat: Animalia must be defined (i.e. as excluding organisms such as plants, unicellular stuff, and however else it's worded.). As it is now, the lead is attempting double duty as it conflates "animal" with "Animalia" in a lexically circular way. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

[ec] See Kingdom (biology)#Summary for an overview of the shifting sands of definition.

Regarding "comprise", the OED features "include" early in the word's extensive entry. With two opposite senses in current use, it is a poster child for ambiguity. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Now you're preaching to my choir. Your draft definition, as quoted above, suffices if Animalia is defined as excluding plants, etc. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The asked definition (two different approaches):

• Contemporary cladistic definition of the Animalia/Metazoa:

Metazoa E. Haeckel 1874 [J. R. Garey and K. M. Halanych], converted clade name

The smallest crown clade containing

Mnemiopsis leidyi Agassiz 1865 (Ctenophora), but not Monosiga ovata Kent 1881 (Choanofagellata

). This is a minimum-crown clade defnition. (K. de Queiroz, P.D. Cantino, J.A. Gauthier: Phylonyms. A Companion to the PhyloCode. Page 435. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. ISBN 978-1-138-33293-5)

• Contemporary taxonomic "definition" (specification) of the Animalia/Metazoa taxon, traditionally kingdom (the name Metazoa is preferred nowadays because of ambiguity of Animalia):

Metazoa Haeckel 1874, emend. Adl et al. 2005 [synonyms Animalia Linnaeus 1758; Eumetazoa Bütschli 1910]

Reproduction sexual through an egg cell, fertilized usually by a monociliated sperm cell with acrosome; embryonic development with blastula followed by gastrulation that begins the differentiation into endoderm, ectoderm, mesoderm, and neuroderm; tissues organized into organs that share tasks for the individual, unless secondarily lost; some secondarily reduced to small number of cells (e.g. Myxozoa Grassé 1970); coordination of cells and tissues by membrane receptors that respond to ligands through elaborate signal transduction; characteristic cell–cell junctions with belt desmosomes or zonulae adherentes; basal lamina and extracellular matrix with collagen and other fibrous proteins (laminin, nidogen, perlecan); heterotrophic nutrition with secretion of digestive enzymes and osmotrophy through a digestive tract; without cell wall; ectoderm completely surrounding body, and endoderm surrounding a digestive tract; sensory cells in epithelium; nervous tissue in organized network; epithelial actin–myosin-based contractile cells between endoderm and ectoderm; some tissues with phagotrophic cells. (Adl et al.: Revisions to the Classification, Nomenclature, and Diversity of Eukaryotes. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology (2019) 66(1), page 21; doi:10.1111/jeu.12691)

--Petr Karel (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There is, of course, no a priori reason why these two "definitions" should produce the same circumscription, and neither are reducible to an opening sentence. If a such a simple sentence is needed, I think it has to be along the lines of "Animals make up the kingdom Animalia. Historically, animals were distinguished by TO-BE-COMPLETED. Modern definitions are usually based on molecular phylogenetic analysis, and may not coincide with the historical definition." Peter coxhead (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this^[1][2] belong in any article on Wikipedia?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Oldest animals - Date does not match the cited sources

It's unclear where the date of "610 million years ago" came from in this sentence:

The oldest animals are found in the Ediacaran biota, towards the end of the Precambrian, around 610 million years ago.

Moreover, the research papers cited in the subsequent sentences give date ranges for the Ediacran biota which are significantly later (e.g., "575 to 542 million years ago"[1] and "571 million to 541 million years ago"^[2]).- Tim314 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the figure 0f 610 million years may have come from an article on Xinhuanet,^[3] or something similar, reporting on the discovery of Caveasphaera. Caveasphaera may be a stage in the evolution of animals, but I think, given the sources I've seen, that WP should avoid saying it is evidence of animals existing that early. There is, however, the claim that molecular clocks support an even earlier origin of animals.^[4] - Donald Albury 18:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The primary article is Yin et al (2019) and they conclude that Caveasphaera has a holozoan affinity (although leaning towards animal).^[5]

The animal article doesn't need such precision. Something about Metazoans going back about 600mya and possibly as long as 750mya would be sufficient. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. S2CID 206509488
   .
2. PMID 30237355
   .
3. ^ "610-mln-yr-old embryo fossils found in China - Xinhua | English.news.cn". www.xinhuanet.com. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
4. ISSN 1521-1878
   .
5. S2CID 208332041
   . Retrieved 28 November 2019.

665 million or 760 million?

There is a mistake somewhere in this article, The fossil range says they existed for 665 million years, but in the phylogeny section it says that they existed for 760 million years. How is that even possible? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:BC53:A60E:C397:7CF0 (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the recorded fossils give a minimum age. Secondly, the phylogenetic age calculated from the inferred branching is approximate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Blue whales

Blue whales are not the largest animal to ever live. 2600:1005:B0BA:2DC4:28C4:7111:113B:35BD (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What reliable source do you know of that supports that statement. - Donald Albury 23:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the stuff about the dinosaurs 2600:1005:B0BA:2DC4:28C4:7111:113B:35BD (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

This edit request to Animal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Using patterns within the taxonomic hierarchy, the total number of animal species—including those not yet described—was calculated to be about 7.77 million in 2011.[66][67][a]" Remove this sentence which is wrong. It was estimated in 2011 that about 8.7 million eukaryotic species live on Earth, which includes animalia but also fungi, plants, and other mono and multicellular species. Considering that around 2.2 to 3.8 million species of fungi (Hawksworth, 2017, Microbil Spectr) it could be assumed that about 4.9 to 6.5 million of animalia + plants + others exist on earth, a much lower estimate that the one states in the current version of the wikipedia page. Please, modify it. Benibenboo (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The article does mention the 7.77 million species, but must be taken with precaution considering that in the article they also estimated 611,000 fungal species, a number much lower than currently estimated. Therefore, we can criticize the method used to estimate the animalia species number. Benibenboo (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your second paragraph is closer to the mark. The paper says

"When applied to all eukaryote kingdoms, our approach predicted ∼7.77 million species of animals, ∼298,000 species of plants, ∼611,000 species of fungi, ∼36,400 species of protozoa, and ∼27,500 species of chromists; in total the approach predicted that ∼8.74 million species of eukaryotes exist on Earth (Table 2)."

The article is therefore verifiably correct in its statement, as far as that particular 2011 paper is concerned. On the question of whether later work has modified the estimate, we are not allowed to reason by

ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is strictly forbidden. You may well be correct that estimates are shifting; we can "in slow time" check newer work and report on that also. Chiswick Chap (talk

) 08:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)