Talk:Body cavity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 old question
2 Merges
3 split
4 Suspect info, needs sources
5 Evolution
6 My review
7 Splitting off Human cavities into separate article

[edit] old question

which body cavity affords the least protection to its internal structures? --anon

Acoelom. The fluid filled cavities (coelom and pseudocoel) won't crush under pressure and act as shock absorbers. TheLimbicOne 13:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

Finished merge. TheLimbicOne 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

~~I haven't yet chased down and killed redirects, but I will tommorrow. TheLimbicOne 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Finished now. TheLimbicOne 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to cleaning up this article, I'd like to merge the suggested articles into here. Reasons: An article on body cavities should include a definition and details about the major types of body cavities:

coelom
pseudocoel
no coelom (ie: the acoelomate animals)

Anyone object or have comments? TheLimbicOne 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] split

The point of my merges is to make this an article about the major body cavities of all animals. Therefore, after the merge, I'd like to split this out into its own article (assuming there's not already an article it would fit into). TheLimbicOne 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My take is that this article should have a brief section on humans and that if there's too much information for this article, the spillover can go into Human body cavity. See WP:Summary Style. I can't believe I just referred to something spilling into a human body cavity. Dave (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspect info, needs sources

These relatively obscure details are important to evolutionary theory. It is presumed that the bilateria evolved from a single common ancestor, and that the division between protostomes and deuterostomes represents an early step in that evolution. Since fossil evidence from that remote period is fragmentary and not always helpful, the analysis of animal development provides additional clues to the evolution of multi-celled animals. The origin of the coelom is unknown. It has been proposed that it developed within a group of organisms known as acoelomates via some members of another group known as "pseudocoelomates". Alternatively, it is thought that the coelom may have evolved from gastric pouches ("stomachs" sort of) in cnidarians.

I deleted the previous pargraph from the original article. While performing a merge/re-write I found a source (columbia university press encyclopedia) that supports this info. I put it back into the re-written article, but I shortened it to a bulleted list. TheLimbicOne 13:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Please strengthen the evolution information in this article. TheLimbicOne 13:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fluids do not compress" is just not true. I'm not really a wikieditor, though.

[edit] My review

I don't know much about comparative anatomy, but here's my take on the article:

Since some people may type in the various terms that redirect here (e.g. the old taxonomic names) the lead to the article should explain that these are no longer used and point to articles (e.g. nematoda) that are relevant.
1. I'll see what I can do about clearing this up, but taxonomy is not my strong suit. Some books (like my biology text, starr in the references) say that nematoda is no longer a taxonomic group, but I still see it used. For another example, homonid sometimes only includes humans and our ancestors (my biology text again) and sometimes includes the other great apes (wikipedia and wikispecies). That's very frustrating to me. --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, facts would be sourced individually with some kind of footnotes. See WP:CITE
1. The only fact that wasn't printed in all of my reference material was the fact I cited about the support of one evolutionary theory over another. That's why I chose not to cite more often. --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The human section as currently written could probably be expanded to all mammals (though it's possible that some cavities have been developed or lost in some lineages, I sort of doubt it.) and it might be interesting to write about what cavities other vertebrates have.
1. I agree on this one. --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd point out somewhere early in the article that sometimes when people say "body cavity," they mean "abdominal body cavity," as in "body cavity searches." I'd put the searches in a "see also" section or something.
1. I think I'll add a section heading called "other uses" and discuss the layman use of the word body cavity. On the same note, is my first statement of the broadest definition accurate? --TheLimbicOne 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The article is not yet comprehensive, though it looks better than before TLO got started on it. For now, I'd focus on adding text to supplement the lists, in particular with regard to evolution and development of the cavity in various lineages (or perhaps just in our lineage).
If there are publicly available pictures (try CDC.gov, NIH.gov, and certain .edu sites), they should be added. If not, you might want to draw one or two and post them yourself.