# Talk:Animal

The text says "The animal kingdom is divided into five infrakingdoms/superphyla, namely Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria and Bilateria.". What? Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa and Cnidaria are definitely phyla. There is also no source cited for this claim. Jako96 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This comment might benefit from getting a few more people to see it, I suggest posting it here to get a broader spectrum of responses. There have been similar discussions there recently on very high taxonomic ranks, and related controversies. Dyanega (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I think as Chiswick Chap said, we should just delete it as there is no source cited and this is straight up nonsense. I fixed it. Jako96 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Just delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I did that in the past, but you guys reverted it. That's why I posted it here. Jako96 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Actually, you reverted it: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal&diff=prev&oldid=1279621793 Jako96 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Anyways, I fixed it now. Jako96 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Apparently, this guy named Smartiejl added it with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal&diff=prev&oldid=1257768358 Jako96 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Also with this edit he added that Bilateria was an infrakingdom and Protostomia, Deuterostomia were superphyla WITHOUT CITING ANY SOURCES. We should warn him because of these edits. Jako96 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jako96 Yeah I agree that's pretty stupid. Either we stick to a single claim or we just call them clades. I know that Cavalier-Smith (1998) used subkingdoms for Radiata (obsolete), Myxozoa (inside Cnidaria now) and Bilateria, and then in Ruggiero et al. (2015) he simply gave up with animal subkingdoms except for Bilateria (the rest are under "Subkingdom n.n."). Textbooks such as Invertebrate Zoology: A Tree of Life Approach use the infomal "higher taxon" or just don't use ranks at all. So yeah, just clades is probably better. Hopefully other editors chime in and give their take, though. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, but actually the thing I said isn't about ranks. It's about that this guy named Smartiejl didn't provide any sources for his nonsense edits. But I think we should probably use ranks as we did with subkingdom Eumetazoa. Jako96 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I gave Smartiejl a warning. It looks like this is his 10th warning for vandalism and 4th warning for adding unsourced material. Jako96 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately Eumetazoa is no longer a very supported clade because of the Ctenophora first hypothesis, which means that the ranking is unstable. Also, I haven't seen any citations for further ranking. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The article's text and cladograms already make that clear. The problem is trying to make an excessively neat summary in an infobox, when real life usually isn't neat at all. That applies to all infoboxes, not just taxoboxen. If we can't ditch the AI-clone approach ("here's a quick summary in a little box") as today's zeitgeist, at least we can prioritise the main text, and we've done that here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was putting the taxobox info into question, it's perfect for this article. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Well the text handles eumetazoa appropriately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap But that's not what we're discussing, we're discussing what ranks should be used in animal taxonomy templates (i.e., {{Taxonomy/Bilateria}} and so on), not in the Animal taxobox subdivisions. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't be discussing it here, this talk page is *only* for Animal, the article itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
For better or worse, the article itself mentions those ranks. The text says "The animal kingdom is divided into five infrakingdoms/superphyla, namely Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria and Bilateria." The issue was noticed here, one of the most important pages of WP:TOL. It's reasonable to discuss it. If the discussion started becoming too long, I'd move it to WT:ANIMALS or WT:TOL (an action already suggested to the discussion's original poster), but so far it's been: 1 thread discussing the edit history of this article, and 1 thread (this one) discussing a miscommunication about the topic of discussion (neither taxobox subdivisons nor the eumetazoan mention in text were questioned, it's the mention of the ranks of eumetazoans and other deep animal groups, and subsequently their usage in the automatic taxobox system, but it concerns this page first and foremost). I agree with your general sentiment about the correct usage of talk pages, but I think you're misinterpreting this particular talk as irrelevant to the article when it isn't. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussing them within the scope of the article is fine, that's the scope of the talk page. Discussing general principles for templates and other articles is not. That's the difference. Policy is quite clear on this point, and you are wasting a lot of other editors' time arguing the toss about the rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm just responding to your comments by clarifying things. It was never my intention to argue endlessly about rules, or to waste anyone's time. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap I don't understand what are you trying to do. If the discussion would be long enough to be moved, as Snoteleks said, he would move it. Please stop trying to start a fight. Maybe if you would not have reverted my edit that I fixed this unsourced addition, Snoteleks wouldn't even have the chance to start a discussion about animal taxonomy templates here. Jako96 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not about length, it's about irrelevance.
Blaming doesn't change anything, either. Mlvluu (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The maximum body length listed as 33.6 m (blue whale) is outdated. Colonial cnidarians like Apolemia reach 120–150 m (~394–492 ft) and are widely recognized as animals. 103.106.139.17 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that supports this content. - Donald Albury 13:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: per the above, closing this request. Feel free to re-open with a reliable source. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Our article currently says

Animals originated in the ocean.
This claim is ambiguous -- originated can mean many things -- and it fails to introduce the paragraph which follows it. The rest of the paragraph concerns land colonization and cites sources which discuss evolution.

Rota-Stabelli, Omar; Daley, Allison C.; Pisani, Davide (2013). "Molecular Timetrees Reveal a Cambrian Colonization of Land and a New Scenario for Ecdysozoan Evolution". Current Biology. 23 (5): 392–398. Bibcode:2013CBio...23..392R. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.026. PMID 23375891. The title includes evolution and colonization.
Clack, Jennifer A. (21 November 2005). "Getting a Leg Up on Land". Scientific American. 293 (6): 100–107. Bibcode:2005SciAm.293f.100C. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1205-100. PMID 16323697. First sentence is "Recent fossil discoveries cast light on the evolution of four-limbed animals from fish".
I propose to change the sentence to 

Animals evolved in the ocean and later colonised the land.
Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton Evolving and originating mean completely different things. You are proposing to substitute the sentence "Animals originated in the ocean" (meaning that the ancestors of all animals appeared in the ocean, which is correct) with "Animals evolved in the ocean and later colonised the land" (meaning that at some point they stopped evolving in the ocean, which is incorrect).
Animals are always evolving, as are all living organisms, and most animal groups continue to evolve in the ocean right now. Not all animals "colonised the land", and both references that you have provided are perfect examples of this.
Four-limbed animals (aka tetrapods) are only one of the few lineages of animals that began evolving to transition into land habitats, and despite that, many have transitioned back into oceans (see whales). Among ecdysozoans, several lineages transitioned into land independently, but others remain in the oceans (like crabs).
Your proposed new sentence is the equivalent of saying "humans evolved in Africa and later colonised Australia". Sounds correct at first glance, but is very inaccurate. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks So lets's try "Animals initially evolved in the ocean and later some species colonized land". This way we get the to key words that the paragraph is concerned with, evolution and colonization, in the first introductory sentence. This would be comparable to "humans first evolved in Africa and some humans later colonised Australia" which would both correct and adequately correct for an introductory sentence about colonizing Australia. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
@Johnjbarton That is already what the same paragraph explains later ("Animals originated in the ocean [...] several lineages of arthropods begun to colonise land around the same time as land plants [...] vertebrates such as the lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik started to move on to land in the late Devonian [...] Animals occupy virtually all of earth's habitats and microhabitats, with faunas adapted to salt water, hydrothermal vents, fresh water, hot springs, swamps, forests, pastures, deserts, air, and the interiors of other organisms"). You would only be adding an overly simplified sentence that confuses readers. "Originate" is the adequate verb to use here. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I continue to disagree and I hope other editors will weigh in. "Originated" is unnecessarily ambiguous. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
How is it ambiguous? The origin of animals occurred in the ocean, once. They never stopped evolving in the ocean, they are constantly evolving in the ocean as anywhere else. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Originated could be spontaneous or divine.  "Animals initially evolved in the ocean" is specific. I grant that my first version, "Animals evolved in the ocean" could be read as "Animals continually evolved in the ocean". Maybe we just need to get rid of the sentence. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree that Animals evolved in the ocean and later colonised the land. reads as if animals evolved in the ocean and that these evolved animals later colonised the land. I don't have a particular problem with "originated", but perhaps something like the first/earliest animals evolved in the ocean would be better.  —  Jts1882  | talk  08:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not understand what is the possible ambiguity with the verb "originated". It seems to me the current version I proposed (diff) is quite clear in postponing and clarifying the colonization of land. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The current content in "Evolutionary origin" does not match reliable secondary sources. Specifically our content makes the evidence sound much more certain by citing primary sources. For example, we say

" the discovery of the animal lipid cholesterol in fossils of Dickinsonia establishes their nature"
citing 

Bobrovskiy, I., Hope, J. M., Ivantsov, A., Nettersheim, B. J., Hallmann, C., & Brocks, J. J. (2018). Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals. Science, 361(6408), 1246-1249.
but a review like

Dos Reis, M., Thawornwattana, Y., Angelis, K., Telford, M. J., Donoghue, P. C., & Yang, Z. (2015). Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales. Current biology, 25(22), 2939-2950.
emphasize the many complex issues including the claims of the primary source above. I think our content should reflect the continuing uncertainty. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The section also jumps back and forth in a confusing mix of time and certainty. The focus of the content is "when" but the section name would suggest more about key common ancestors. To me these are both valid topics so perhaps we need two subsections "Earliest examples" and "Biological ancestors". Johnjbarton (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Before I dive in the sources, I would like to understand your argument. How can a 2015 review emphasize issues about a 2018 research? cyclopiaspeak! 08:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Primary sources generally seek to present their result in the most positive light. Reviews, by their nature, take into consideration much broader points of view. Our statement about the  Bobrovskiy work makes it appear to be a definitive breakthrough.
Wood, R., Liu, A. G., Bowyer, F., Wilby, P. R., Dunn, F. S., Kenchington, C. G., ... & Penny, A. (2019). Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion. Nature ecology & evolution, 3(4), 528-538.
mentions  Bobrovskiy in passing, saying:
The first identifiable motile, heterotrophic organisms are Kimberella quadrata, Yorgia and Dickinsonia from Russia, at ~558–555 Ma, the latter being highly likely to have been a metazoan on the basis of ichnological, developmental and biomarker evidence
Yang, C., Rooney, A. D., Condon, D. J., Li, X. H., Grazhdankin, D. V., Bowyer, F. T., ... & Zhu, M. (2021). The tempo of Ediacaran evolution. Science advances, 7(45), eabi9643.
says:
The first appearance datum of Dickinsonia, together with the oldest metazoan lipid biomarkers (31), is ca. 90 m below the 557.3 ± 0.6–Ma ash bed in the White Sea area.
Kaçar, B. (2024). Reconstructing early microbial life. Annual Review of Microbiology, 78(2024), 463-492.
says
Fossilized lipids preserved in sedimentary rocks can offer insights into ecological trends across high-level clades when unique lipid synthesis pathways can be mapped onto distinct extant organisms.
and I think there are more. Our presentation of the the Bobrovskiy work is inconsistent with secondary sources.
Perhaps there are newer secondary sources that back up our claim of certainty, but my understanding is more like there is a lot of evidence pointing to the Ediacaran timeline. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)