Talk:Animal: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→On phylogeny: help!: phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, or some such) |
imported>Joshua Choi |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:Don't forget that "Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny", or is it vice versa? See my novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum_Monsters, hehe.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | :Don't forget that "Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny", or is it vice versa? See my novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum_Monsters, hehe.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Yes, but I'm afraid my muddled mind can't understand yet how I may apply ontogeny to the phylogeny section. Most of all, it seems like I'm groping around with this article on my own, and I am in no way a professional biologist, so I don't know well what's going on right now. I guess I can just plod ahead with my book's phylogeny, noting in the text that [http://www.tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459 the accepted model is still controversial and being fleshed out]. Be bold, I guess. | |||
::But if any experts have more advice, I'd love it! | |||
::PS. Wow, you're a novelist? That's awesome! [[User:Joshua Choi|Joshua Choi]] 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:27, 30 March 2009
Thanks for the effort, but--ouch, not a good first sentence. Please see Biology for a model of readability, and Article Mechanics for some relevant comments. --Larry Sanger 14:31, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
On phylogeny: help!
I've been writing this article for the past few days, but I've hit a snag: animal phylogeny. I've been referring to my introductory biology textbook for most of my information, but with some research in journals I've found that the theory that my book uses is still controversial and muddled sometimes, especially in Bilateria. The most fundamental argument is over the pitfalls of the new data from molecular phylogeny, etc. used to rearrange everything. Other smaller examples include where Rotifera, Acoelomorpha, etc. are placed among Deuterostomia, Ecdysozoa, and Lophotrochozoa.
I'm now too afraid to type any more on the phylogeny section now that I know that my book is contradicted by other recent reports; I don't know if I've written anything that's false. (My book, the Freeman text cited in the article, is from last year, so it's recent. I don't know enough to gauge its objectivity, however.) I ask for help from everyone who knows enough about animal taxonomy. I welcome suggestions here, but editing the article itself is great too! Joshua Choi 23:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't forget that "Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny", or is it vice versa? See my novel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum_Monsters, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm afraid my muddled mind can't understand yet how I may apply ontogeny to the phylogeny section. Most of all, it seems like I'm groping around with this article on my own, and I am in no way a professional biologist, so I don't know well what's going on right now. I guess I can just plod ahead with my book's phylogeny, noting in the text that the accepted model is still controversial and being fleshed out. Be bold, I guess.
- But if any experts have more advice, I'd love it!
- PS. Wow, you're a novelist? That's awesome! Joshua Choi 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)