Talk:Deuterostome

message: In the page on Chordata I find
:Kingdom: Animalia 
:Subkingdom: Deuterostomia 
:Phylum: Chordata 
How does that work with the box shown on this page where it's shown as a Superphylum? I don't really know how these things work. Should the boxes link to articles explaining the terms?
KayEss 21:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous text

message: Vetulicolia was erected by Shu, et.al. in 2001 as a phylum of deuterostomes. Are there any objections to adding it to the list of phylums here? -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vetulicolia

message: Protostomes and deuterostomes are fundamental divisions of the animals. What would be the advantage of merging the articles into eumetazoa? I would prefer to have an article for each clade, at least at the higher levels for now, and eventually down to lower levels. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This site says "[n]one of the deuterostome phyla are truely parasitic". -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you define parasite. For instance, the Wikipedia article Parasite includes the statement, Classically, the distinction between parasites and other symbionts was methodological: parasites were symbionts that could not be kept alive outside the host, unlike bacteria, for example, which could be cultured in a laboratory. Blood sucking fish and vampire bats are specialized feeders. As long as they leave their "hosts" after feeding, I don't consider them parasites. I would also note that some human groups consume blood drawn from living animals, but they are not called parasites. 
There are cases of male parasitism on females in the Ceratioidei (anglerfishes), and maybe some other fishes, but that is a rather specialized type of parasitism. Can you cite any other deuterostomes that have become obligate parasites? -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deuterostomes and parasites 

message: i am taking a evolution class now and we have talked about yunnanozoans. they are dificult to fit anywhere it seems. perhaps someone should have a look at nature 430:426 (2004) and nature 402:44 (1999).
:See Yunnanozoon. As many of us don't have access to Nature, listing article titles and authors would help us search for abstracts, comments, etc. -- Donald Albury 10:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yunnanozoans 

message: Should the article be updated with reference to ? Bondegezou 10:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not. The abstract for the article is at , so that can be included in the citation. -- Donald Albury 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bourlat ''et al.'' (2006) paper 

message: some diagrams on the embryonic development of protostomes vs. deuterostomes would be a nice addition.
--66.32.146.72 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagrams 

message: Phylum Chordata is not all vertebrates.  There are invertebrates in Chordata.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.240.243 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chordata 

message: *Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution contains a nice summary and cites the peer-reviewed source. The 2nd diagram also suggests why the anus develops first in deuteros. -- Philcha (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: See recent article
http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009586  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.148.217 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tentaculate Fossils Interpreted as Primitive Deuterostomes 

message: The following has appeared on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38800987
Googling Saccorhytus finds a number of other news reports, but an article might need someone qualified in the field rather than an interested layman like myself.
The actual Letter in Nature is at
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature21072.epdf?referrer_access_token=O7fr6S2uCrl0bSEaJoRfhtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oz0VvtJ3OoBhIW1AQ7Cw_oSd6iCVf7msxw6fhyZLzYDmGcrdwhwTwE9VuvaIh0-hffANoXxPBjgU-bVMuzO5lfnqH8wIm5zntid0qYiX8smFu4qQl-5n3RRRUjcennrHJvD76n8j3Ofdelp7QfNRFHz2mfF3e5GgBYIrKTf2IF7g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.co.uk
– {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert either, but I've added a reference to the discovery where I thought was most suitable ("Origins and evolution"). It can be expanded/moved by an expert as necessary.– TastyChikan (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking News of earliest-yet discovered Deuterostome 

message: After looking at this page, it seems a little unnecessary to have the two sections 'Classification History' and 'Classification' separate from each other, as well as in different places (the beginning and end) of the Wikipedia article. The section containing 'Notable Characteristics' would be a better first section to have listed after the introduction, as it defines what Deuterostomes are and how they are all related to each other. A way to implement both of these changes could be seen as how the Chordate 'Classifcation' section and subsections are organized.
Also, the section on the 'Formation of the Mouth and Anus' could also be included as a subsection of 'Notable Characteristics' as it is already commented upon first in that section. A way to implement both of these changes could be seen as how the section and subsections are organized.
KoreanBobsledder (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining 'Classification History' section with 'Classification' section 

message: In reference 5http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/humandev/2004/Chapt18-Endoderm.pdf of Embryological origins of the mouth and anus, the human mouth forms at 4 weeks and the anus at 8 weeks, which seems to contradict its classification as a deuterostome. I'm confused. Can an expert help clarify this? -- SpareSimian (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human development