Talk:Animal: Difference between revisions
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Joshua Choi (→On phylogeny: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Thanks for the effort, but--ouch, not a good first sentence. Please see [[Biology]] for a model of readability, and [[CZ:Article Mechanics|Article Mechanics]] for some relevant comments. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:31, 26 March 2007 (CDT) | Thanks for the effort, but--ouch, not a good first sentence. Please see [[Biology]] for a model of readability, and [[CZ:Article Mechanics|Article Mechanics]] for some relevant comments. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:31, 26 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
== On phylogeny == | |||
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! [[User:Joshua Choi|Joshua Choi]] 23:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:21, 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
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)