Talk:Brachiopod

message: The big ol' table in the Taxonomy section was compiled using Williams, Carlson, and Brunton (2000).  The Treatise is pretty much the definitive source for invertebrate paleontology, so I would only change the table if you have a very good reason (which of course you might!) Gwimpey 22:20, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Added text from article I originally wrote in 1998 and published it on the Web....
Portions of this text are :
"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.
Dlloyd 00:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: If anyone has some brachiopod pictures to contribute, that would be great.  I can't find any on the net that are obviously not under copyright protection.  Drawings or photos of brachiopod fossils, shells, or live animals would all be good. Gwimpey 18:46, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
Added two brachiopod photographs.
Dlloyd 22:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a picture of living brachs!  Finally!  Thanks to the USGS.  Gwimpey 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree -- the lamp picture should go. We need more brachiopod images for this article. Wilson44691 (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely. Wassname (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures needed 

message: I removed this category since Brachiopods still exist today. It is just that Brachiopods were exceptionally abundant in Palaezoic times. — Richie 09:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Paleozoic]] 

message: There are lots of brachiopods specimens on 
Wren's Nest Fossils from the Silurian outcrop in Dudley, England. These are in a series of pdf files because jpegs images are too large for a quick download.
--Geoff Broughton 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wren's Nest Silurian Brachipods 

message: Hi as part of the WP:HOTlist project of missing articles I noticed that Britannica has an article on Resserella (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9063286?query=Resserella&ct=eb) but we don't mention that extinct species here. Does anyone know why? I expect we call it by a different name? Many thanks, Pcb21 Pete 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''Resserella'''''

message: The sentence "Unlike bivalves, which (if symmetrical) have a plane of symmetry between the left and right shell, brachiopods shells (if symmetrical) have a plane of bilaterally symmetric at right angles to the plane between the top and bottom shells, which usually differ in shape" (in the first paragraph) seems ungrammatical, and may benefit from clarification.  69.140.157.138 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to improve it. See what you think. --Geologyguy 14:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, much more readable; however, as I have no knowledge of the field, I am not qualified to comment about whether the improved version is truly better or not.  68.50.203.109 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for cleanup 

message: I've given this article a "start" rating as opposed to a "B" rating due to the lack of references (there are only a few references with no inline citations). Upon improving the citations/references, this article is a candidate for a B rating. Justin chat 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start class article 

message: Why the redirect from a genuine taxon, Brachipoda, to a page with a simple vernacular term, brachiopod. Or was the idea to avoid scientific depth. It's the difference between clam and Bivlavia (= Pelecypoda) or between sea star and Asteroidea.  
JM 2/14/07
Furthermore brachiopod is a singular noun as in "this is a brachiopod", "a spirifer is a brachiopod", or "a brachiopod is a sessile bivalved animal with a lophophore. I know that some would find changing back to the phylum Brachiopoda problematical, but that's what this article is about, not some simple brachiopod.
JM talk 8/35/09
::I think that's just Wikipedia's convention. The article is dinosaur, not Dinosauria; bird, not Aves. Abyssal (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JM, it should be more accurate. Furthermore, I also support moving Dinosaur to Dinosauria and Bird to Aves, even though it won't happen :) --Spotty 11222 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't bother me either, but it is what it is. Abyssal (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brachiopod, vs Brachiopoda

message: ===Ecology===
* Ecology of Inarticulated Brachiopods (1997; Emig) --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources & notes

message: * Ecology of Inarticulated Brachiopods (1997; Emig) --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecology

message: (NB have lots on Cambrian, need more on later record !!)
* Encyclopedia of paleoclimatology and ancient environments () - brachios & paleoclimates (p. 11, ch. "Animal proxies - Invertebrates", Robert R. Gaines & Mary L. Droser)
* Cowen --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil record

message: (See also Evolutionary history of brachiopods --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Phylogeny

message: Brachiopod shells can be classified according to the angle between the cardinal plane and the plane where the shells join (commissure); anacline shells have an angle of less than 90°, whereas aspacline shells have a higher angle.http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-apsacline.html; http://www.mcz.harvard.edu/Departments/InvertPaleo/Trenton/Intro/PaleoPage/Terminology&Morphology/Terminology&Morphology.htm#InclinationofBra
Hiding by HTML comments in main text.
* Not clear what this shows about how the critters function or develop or evolved.
* Adds tech techs with explanation. --Philcha (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Text "parking" as function not clear

message: Having just come to this article for a quick read-up, my initial impression is that the lede is currently far too long, containing much detail that would be better placed in subsequent sections. Am I in a minority of one? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the article, and the GA reviewer had no problems with the lead. OTOH it is long, even by the standards of one about a phylum. If you want to make some suggestions in this Talk page (not on the article until we've discussed), I'll listen. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede/body imbalance? 

message: Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segmentation in brachiopods and phoronids 

message: The structure of the article seems to emphasize the fossil record.  The first image in the upper right shows a fossil brachiopod.  The introduction doesn't make it immediately clear that there are any alive today.  While they are certainly more prevalent in the past, they are quite extant.  Is it proper style to put the living first? Teply (talk) 07:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extant first? 

message: "Lineages of brachiopods that have both fossil and  extant taxa appeared in the early Cambrian, Ordovician and Carboniferous  periods respectively." How would one parse "respectively" in this context. Can someone clear this in the text.--Wetman (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  opaque sentence 

message: The Taxonomy section is quite big and difficult to digest.  Shall we separate it into a new article and summarize the section into shorter paragraphs? --Tomchiukc (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More than that (the section is quite short now, with a table that resumes everything), the actual 5 orders are missing:  Obolellata, Kutorginata, Chileata, Strophomenata, and Rhynchonellata.  Terebratulida is now a class and shouldn't be mentioned here. --Ruthven (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxnomy of brachiopoda 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brachiopod. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101163750/http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Lophotrochozoa/Brachiopoda/E0A0E0Brachiopoda.htm to http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Lophotrochozoa/Brachiopoda/E0A0E0Brachiopoda.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the 2nd paragraph,at the 1st line, the greek word "podos" transilated as "("foot")" has to be changed to "pous", because "podos" is the Genative form of the word "pous" in Nominative. Anjius (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pous" instead of "podos"