Talk:Phylum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other discussion on this topic see Talk:Phylum (biology)


Contents

[edit] Protozoa

Bold text THEY DONT SHOW MUCH ON FROGS THEY DONT MAKE IT REALLY MAKE IT SIMPLE

==

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.119.123 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) What happened to phylum protozoa? I guess it's been a long time since I took a biology class...

have a look under Protist and protozoa. KimvdLinde 05:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... okay, Protista is the newer name. It's still not listed here. I find the list here a little confusing. It appears to only list Phyla of the Animal Kingdom. Is it intended only as an example or a work in progress? I initially missed the title and assumed the table was a list of all Phyla.

[edit] Requested move

I requested this change on October 2, 2005. I feel the biological sense is the dominant meaning for phlyum. No one commented on the proposal, and after two weeks, an administrator moved the pages. A few hours later, another user left a message on the talk page saying he disagreed with the move that had just been done, and now moved them back. I don't wish to move-war over this, and I'd like to see more support for this one way or the other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear. My proposal was to move Phylum to Phylum (disambiguation), and to then move Phylum (biology) to Phylum. However, on Talk:Phylum (biology), User:Encephalon proposed an even better idea, in my opinion; with only two articles, there is no need to disambiguate. Delete the current Phylum (disambiguation page); move Phylum (biology) here, and place a "for the use of phylum in lingusitics" message at the top of the biological Phylum article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support as its moving Phylum (biology) to Phylum - but I can count your opinion as-is too. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: biological meaning is more common and having it as a primary disambiguation will simplify inline linking in the very large number of wikipedia articles in which it occurs. Jonathunder 06:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support having the biological meaning at phylum, with primary topic disambiguation. The biological meaning is overwhelmingly more common. "Language family" is more common term in linguistics. Gdr 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I think the biological meaning is primary. Does that mean I support the proposal or oppose? Put the question, please. Quintusdecimus

The term was introduced by Cuvier, and adopted in the 1871 (?) Paris convention. I'll look up the details. John Wilkins 09:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The top of the article makes no sense. It seems to be some sort of list which perhaps should belong (formatted properly) in the rest of the article. 130.243.207.208 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We missed some vandalism, I am restoring it right now. KimvdLinde 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentastomida

I removed the Pentastomida from this list; most experts consider them to be arthropods. Gdr 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I see several other adjustments have been made (which is fine) but I think everybody should bear in mind that this is a contentious and rapidly changing area, so it may never be possible to produce a difinitive list all can agree on.

[edit] Vetulicolia

Does Vetulicolia belong on this list somewhere? Bob the Hamster 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of animal phyla

The first line of this table was garbled and the headings were missing. I have just fixed that. But now ... why are the "best known animal phyla", Mollusca, Porifera, Arthropoda, Chordata etc, NOT in the table? I assume that *cannot* be a mere oversight, and there must be some rationale for omitting them??? 86.6.13.17 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Frank

Thanks, but the stuff was more messed up than I thought, and the vandalism had been missed for over 2 weeks, which is extreme long at wikipedia. Thanks for trying to repair it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of plant phyla

I suggest the phyla (divisions) of algae are included: Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta/Heterokontophyta (I need to do some homework here!) Osborne 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Don't?

The change from "Phylum" to "Division" by botanists also changes the handy way of remembering the taxonomic classifications used by students. Instead of Katie Please Come Over For Ginger Snaps I guess the botany students will be saying Katie Don't Come Over For Ginger Snaps. Not as easy to remember.Kdwillis 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Or as enjoyable for Katie. CFLeon 00:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tree of Phyla

Should this entry not aim to show the tree of phyla and the relationship between them - eg the close link beween chordates and echinoderms and the grouping of animal phyla into bilateral and radial groups?

[edit] clickable diagram

Does anyone know how to make clickable the parts of the diagram showing the different levels of taxa (phylum, kingdom, etc.)? I'd like to be able to click on 'species' as a link, and not be taken to a blowup of the whole diagram. Kaimiddleton 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bacteria and Archaea

Why are all bacterial and archaean phyla missing from the lists? These really need to be added. TimVickers 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

In addition to the above, there is a lot of scope for some discussion of the origin of phyla in this article; the coverage is sparse and was incorrect. The Budd reference is especially essential reading in terms of countering the populist (and IMO incorrect) Gouldian view pushed in Wonderful life. Verisimilus T 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biological taxonomy

is there some actual defining term or word for biological taxonomy that is used commonly? I mean, as far as i can tell, there isn't even a wikipedia article dedicated to describing the whole system of classification used by biologists, botanists, etc. If there's some common term, it could be looked up easily in wikipedia. Maybe it's fine as a subtopic in a "taxonomy" article, I dunno. Any thoughts?

Ormewood (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images?

Some images would really liven up this article as well as give laymen some sense of perspective. Shinobu (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phylum

How come the animals are all worms? Where are the phylums with dogs and sharks I'm desperate here!Jamhaw (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)jamhaw

  • All of the vertebrates come under the phylum Chordata - ExNihilo (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)