Talk:Siboglinidae

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siboglinidae article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Skip to table of contents

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Marine life Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Marine life To do: edit history watch purge Have a look at the Marine life WikiProject and sign up. Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by The Marine life Wikiproject: Collaboration of the week: Marine life article assessment Other: See the projects page Images: Upload any non-copyrighted marine life images to Wikimedia Commons Featured Articles/Good Articles : Other: Add {{Portal|Marine life}} to related articles Animals Mid‑importance Siboglinidae is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve : Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae ), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Annelid worms? I thought that since 1960s no one seriously thought that these animals were annelids? Their embryology and body plan shows relation to Hemichordata and Enteropneusta, not Annelida!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.66.39 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2007

I've added cites for their position within the annelids. I don't know whether a lot of work has been done in explaining the embryology and body plan in light of those results, but doing some more searching on Google Scholar would probably find what has been published to date. Kingdon 14:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current edition of Ruppert, Fox, and Barnes (2007) has them listed as as annelids in the order Pogonophora for a couple of reasons. First they have a segmented opisthosoma with chaeta. Second, they have trochophore larva. Third, they have a juvenile with a complete gut (Ruppert et al., 2007). Ruppert et al. also says that molecular data supports their inclusion in the polychaeta, however doesn't cite the source. Looking into some journals for the molecular info might be helpful Findfunds 06:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this have anything remotely to do with reality?

This discovery was made by none other than Prof. Nicholas Freemanaina, one of the world's leading coffee experts, in his search for the mythical super-species of aquatic coffee bean. The sub-species has subsequently been named Vermaterfreemanaina nicolasii.

—Preceding

) 23:23, 23 November 2009 64.132.32.226

• A colleague removed, a couple of days later, the entirety of Vestimentiferan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s only contrib, which read:

Most recently, a new sub-species of Vestimentiferan was discovered deep in the Marianas Trench of the Challenger Deep. This discovery was made by none other than Prof. Nicholas Freemanaina, one of the world's leading coffee experts, in his search for the mythical super-species of aquatic coffee bean. The sub-species has subsequently been named Vermaterfreemanaina nicolasii.

Thanks for flagging it, 64!
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the accompanying article (except in the last case),

1. The lead secn has

   (a) "

   Giant tube worms

   " in former phylum Pogonophora, and

   (b) family Siboglinidae comprising former phyla Pogonophora and Vestimentifera;

2. Taxo-box says has Siboglinidae in (current) order Canalipalpata;
3. Section
   Giant tube worm
   ) as "a vestimentiferan";
4. but (in the above talk section #Annelids?) User:Findfunds has Ruppert, Fox, and Barnes putting "them" [Siboglinidae, surely] among "annelids in the order Pogonophora".

The attempt to harmonize these seems to run up against two issues:

1. #1 (b) invites the expectation that Pogonophora and Vestimentifera have each been demoted and subordinated to family Siboglinidae, and thus each a sub-family or a super-genus of it, while #4 seems to have Siboglinidae subordinated to an order Pogonophora instead of to order Canalipalpata.
2. #1 (b)'s bald description of "former phyla" Pogonophora and Vestimentifera insinuates demotion without change of membership and without subordination of one to the other, but #1 (a) has
   Giant tube worm
   formerly in phylum Pogonophora while #3 has it currently in Vestimentifera.

I consider that to be the math; i hope someone else can do the taxonomy, with refs. (I also think that both old and new taxonomy need to be clearly discussed, to serve users trying understand our articles in terms of old works that have valid observations even if they describe them in obsolete terminology.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]