Talk:Sipuncula

untitled

Added photo, removed tag.--Abbott75 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) hola bola de putos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.171.17 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Phylum status

According to the Annelid article, Sipuncula are a subdivision of that phylum. Is there any reason why we treat them as an independent one in this article? Complainer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

I don't know. Perhaps I should be bold and change the taxonomy template. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sipuncula/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Starting soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• The first species of this phylum was described in 1827 by the French zoologist Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville – but the taxonbox states that the phylum was already described by "Rafinesque, 1814"; how does this fit together, and why not mention it?

A species description is a detailed description of the type specimen and should be able to differentiate this species from others by means of the fine detail. My guess is that Rafinesque coined a name for the group in 1814 without going in to the fine detail. In fact WoRMS does not mention him at all, and I could remove his name from the taxobox. (It was there before I started working on the article.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm, that seems to be the official authority for the name though, and not mentioning it is a relatively large hole in my opinion. I would not consider it strictly necessary for reaching GA, but if anything can be done that would be nice. This seems to be his original mention, maybe just add a sentence that he established the name and cite that work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The history section came from a book source but was rubbish. I have removed it, and rewritten the taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would try to explain and link terminology more thoroughly. Some terms, like "anterior", may be even avoided altogether. Examples include:

• non-ciliated epidermis overlain by a cuticle – terms should be linked. Cilium is linked further down, but should be at first mention.
• non-chitinous
• double helix
• extra-cellular
• haemocytes, granulocytes
• ciliated urn cells

• bipolar sensory cells
• fauveliopsid

• A related species was later described as – when was it described? Date would be nice.

• The specimen was provided by a friend of his, Professor Mackintosh. – Is his full name not known? If so, maybe formulate it in a way to make this clear. We usually do not add honorary titles.

• but have a separate system from that of the rest of the introvert – system of what kind? It would really be helpful to have a word before "system" to make it more specific.

• tentacles form a crown – what precisely is meant with crown, maybe explain a bit more for clarity? I can guess, but I still wonder how tentacles would look like that do not form a crown.

• Hooks are often present near the mouth on the introvert – is the function of these hooks known?

• The tentacles at the tip of the introvert – is this referring to all tentacles? If not, how do the other tentacles differ?

• possess epidermal structures modified for boring into rock; the anal shield is near the anteriorly located – what is the link between boring and anal shield?

• what is the anal shield? – What is an anal shield after all? It becomes a bit clearer later, but it would really be helpful to have a short definition at first mention.

• interstitial fluid – is same as coelomic fluid? It could really go well with more explanation.

• ultrafiltration – the wikilink appears not to lead to the desired article, its only about the medical condition. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think I have dealt with all these points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Although typically less than 10 cm long, some sipunculans may reach several times that length. – Maybe better place this info within the the description section? Maybe also add the smallest and largest species, if this info is available.

• are sensitive to salinity, and thus not commonly found near estuaries – but estuaries would mean less salinity? Maybe "sensitive to changes in salinity" or "sensitive to decreases in salinity" would be more precise?

• They are especially common below the surface of the sediment on tidal flats. – Any numbers here? Any case studies? Specimens per square meters? Might be interesting, just to get an idea.

• has only been detected in – I suggest "observed" instead of "detected".

• crown group – also could be linked.

• An unnamed sipunculid worm has been discovered in the Burgess Shale in Alberta, Canada, and Lecthaylus has been identified from the Granton Shrimp Bed, Edinburgh dating to the Silurian period. –

but Burgess Shale is Cambrian, should be mentioned.

• the Granton Shrimp Bed, Edinburgh dating – but not precisely in Edinburgh, is it? Maybe say "Scotland", "or near Edinburgh, Scotland"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

These points dealt with. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and congrats for the GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Good article"

It may not be up to this particular article to explain the earlier uses of the same name by Lhuyd and others, but it should at least explain why it lists the first use as 1767 while providing a source dated to 1766. — LlywelynII 01:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)