Talk:Coelenterata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] The issue of redirecting to Cnidaria

Cnidaria already explains that Coelenterata was an earlier name for the phylum. This article had no references and no categories. It is more appropriate for it to be a redirect. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But it creates a lot interwiki conflicts. Most ofThere were at least some articles in other languages talking about Coelenterates, interwikied to Cnidaria. This is an endless source of conflicts. --Maxxicum updated 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is an issue. According to ITIS, the scientific term is "Cnidarian", the common name is "coelenterate" (or "coelentérés" or whatever). They're synonymous (cf. Quercus and oak), but we should lean toward the scientific term for universality. (See Template:TSN). --Grahamtalk/mail/e 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong redirect

As far as I'm concerned, Cnidaria are subclass of Coelenterates, and not otherwise (e.g., excerpt from Cnidaria article: "The names Coelenterata and Coelentera were formerly applied to the group, but as those names included the Ctenophores (comb jellies), they have been abandoned." The redirect from more general to more specific is incorrect. Either it should be deleted, or someone please make a stub. --Maxxicum 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever heard of Coelenterata as referring to Cnidaria and excluding the Ctenophora. Even my older invert (Ruppert and Barnes, 1994) and general zoo (Hickman and Roberts, 1994) textbooks all call it a synonym for Cnidaria not as a synonym for Radiata. I agree with the redirect to Cnidaria and would oppose a redirect to Radiata. --Aranae 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No talking about redirect to Radiata, they are not equivalent, too. If the article that exists is not worthy, just delete it. I'll try to find some references confirming that Coelenterata include comb jellies. --Maxxicum 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. By the way, could you please show me a source stating that Coelenterata exclude Ctenophores? --Maxxicum 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hickman, Cleveland P. and Larry S. Roberts. Biology of Animals sixth edition. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque.; and Ruppert, Edward E. and R. D. Barnes. 1994. Invertebrate Zoology sixth edition. Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth. They're both older textbooks. --Aranae 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like almost everyone essentially suggests that Coelenterata is a synonym for Cnidaria, but that ctenophores were once placed within the Coelenterata/Cnidaria. The name change in common usage was to emphasize the stinging cells instead of the body plan since the cells are a more diagnostic character. What's the citation for calling Coelenterata an infrakingdom that contains both Cnidaria and Ctenophora as stated in the article? The historic use of that rank and the notion that there's another infrakingdom in Radiata would convince me that the Coelenterata should be something other than a redirect. --Aranae 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't my text about infrakingdom, actually, and needs verification. However, I've found something that might support it: [1]. Hope this helps. See, the problem is that I am no biologist, i.e. no expert for this subject; but, for instance, in Russian and Ukrainian the term equivalent to Coelenterata is much-much more common than Cnidaria; Also, try German interwiki to this article - there is an article about Coelenterata, not about Cnidaria. So I guess that this article should exist separately from Cnidaria, if even being short. --Maxxicum 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Here, some references:
  1. Indeed, until relatively recently the phylum Coelenterata was considered to include animals now placed in Cnidaria and Ctenophora.
  2. Ctenophores and cnidarians were formerly placed together in the phylum Coelenterata.
  3. The name ‘coelenterata’ has long been employed as a convenient way to describe organisms from the two phyla Ctenophora and Cnidaria. Because it implies a degree of relatedness which is now considered inaccurate, this word is typically avoided in a rigorous taxonomic or phylogenetic context.
You've sold me. --Aranae 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm now looking at an old textbook (Simpson, George Gaylord and William S. Beck. 1965. Life: An Introduction to Biology, Second Edition. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.) which lists 'Phylum Coelenterata or Cnidaria' and 'Phylum Ctenophora' under 'Subkingdom Metazoa'. It would appear that 'Ctenophora' was treated as a separate phylum before 'Coelenterata' was deprecated as a term for what is now 'Cnidaria'. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
But this is not the only existing point of view on the term, is it? I've given some examples which state otherwise. Are they not enough to be mentioned? --Maxxicum 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes there is so little to say about a topic that is better to fold it into another article and leave a redirect. What can be said about 'Coelenterata' that is not also covered in 'Cnidaria'? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we agreed, then?

From the above discussions, it seems like we've got the preponderance of authority behind the deprecation of Coelenterata as a contemporary formal term. I can't find a single contemporary work supporting statements like "Use of this term to describe Phylum Cnidaria is very common, but considered inaccurate by some biologists." Before I rewrite this, could I have a quick show of hands: are you in favor of rewriting this article from that conclusion? Your comments? --Grahamtalk/mail/e 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Obviously. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm very far from being an expert on the subject, the only point I was trying to make is that redirecting to Cnidaria was not very accurate. I'm looking forward to see what experts can correct in the stub I tried to make, considering the arguments I've mentioned above. Thank you in advance for working on the article. --Maxxicum 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumscription, circumscription, circumscription

The definition of "Coelenterata" that I learned (many, many years ago) did not include Ctenophora--the comb jellies were considered a separate phylum from the jellyfish, corals, etc.--and corresponded to what is now more commonly known as Cnidaria. What is going on here is that the name "coelenterate" (and its variants) has been used in two different senses, depending upon its circumscription: a broader circumscription that includes the comb jellies, and a narrower circumscription that excludes them. The same name is (or can be) used for both circumscriptions, a common cause of confusion in taxonomy. Context (e.g., whose classification scheme you are using) is extremely important, and ignoring this always causes confusion. All classifications are opininions--POV--and especially in cases like this where it can cause confusion it's extremely important to source those opinions. Unfortunately the article does not express this very clearly. MrDarwin 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)