Jump to content

Talk:Sponge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 157.131.142.229 (talk) at 20:34, 28 April 2020 (→Is Porifera as sister group to all other Metazoa debate really definitively resolved? (April 2020): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleSponge has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Template:Vital article

Template:PortalArticleBannerShell

The Overview section needs improvement regarding the taxonomic relationships among different kinds of sponges. For example, the section refers to Demosponges, sponges with silica, sponges with calcium carbonate skeletons, and Calcareous sponges. It is unclear whether these are four mutually exclusive taxa, whether some of these taxa overlap partially, or whether some of these taxa are completely subsumed under supraordinate taxa. Someone who understands the classification (assuming the classification is not controversial) and also can write clearly should edit the section with eye toward using clear and simple language to indicate the interrelationships among the sponge species groupings noted above. ~PB 05:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

I'm a bit new to editing Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure this is how you make a request. Correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless I think Porifera incertae sedis should be added to the list of classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CltrAltDelicious (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

porifera has radial symmetry 117.192.205.128 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

add photo of skeletal structure?

hi...new to wikipedia here. I'd like to add a photo showing skeletal structure of a live sponge. There is lots of discussion of spicules and skeletal structure in the article without illustration.

This is the photo I would like to add. I'm too new to edit this page.

closeup photo of the demosponge Callyspongia plicifera showing silica skeleton

Jessica Rosenkrantz (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sponge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sponge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal range

The infobox says Ediacaran-recent but the evolution section (and other articles like Cryogenian and Animal) state that sponges were likely around earlier during or after the Marinoan glaciation. Should the infobox be changed, at least with "possible Cryogenian record"? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical

Please, experts, tell me what the first sentence is supposed to convey to a scientifically literate nonspecialist? I can tell you: virtually nothing. The introduction to a WP article is supposed to be meaningful to an educated reader. This is hopeless. Will someone please put in some plain English? And thanks. Zaslav (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Porifera as sister group to all other Metazoa debate really definitively resolved? (April 2020)

This article seems to cite at least twice the 2017 article which claims that Porifera are the sister group to all Metazoa without any qualifications, as if it were incontrovertibly established fact. (In particular in the first paragraph, rather than say something more neutral, like "some sources suggest that...".) However another 2017 paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664179/ claims that Ctenophores are the sister group to all Metazoa, and this other paper is not mentioned in the article at all, which seems to give an incomplete picture of the discussion of the topic among professional biologists and thus seems to possibly be a disservice to the readers and users of Wikipedia. Neither study can seriously be considered definitive, since neither study uses whole-genome data, and thus do not use all available biological information. (Nor does either study have sufficiently many outgroups, and focusing only on genes transcribed into amino acids completely neglects information which could be contained in pseudogenes about lost characteristics.) Both studies make questionable arguments and use questionable methods, and therefore the questions regarding the phylogenetic relationships among Metazoa can not be considered to be definitely resolved as the introduction of this article seems to purport.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sponge&oldid=953739331"