Talk:Marine biology

message: this  Marine Ecology or Marine Biology.  Not sure what would be more appropriate.? Any thoughts?  sunja 02:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not. "Biology is the study of living things—the science of life." (from Biology, Raven et al., 2005, 7th edition). Jvalph (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True but that is the original question, is the article about the living beings of the marine ecosystem, or about the ecosystem as a whole... though to be real it doesn't seem to matter too much. sunja (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Of all the fish species in the world, why selecting clownfish? This is about Marine biology and should be more generic, not simply reflecting personal interests. Don't you agree? --Arnejohs 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: - Yes this was very inapproriate, i suspect a joke. More info on fishes is needed though. - sunja 11:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clownfish? Is it a joke?

message: From the Wiki: "flounder (family Soleidae) fish and shrimp were seen by the American crew of the bathyscaphe Trieste when it dove to the bottom in 1960.". In 'Mapping The Deep. The Extraordinary Story of Ocean Science' (2000) suggests that the crew of the Trieste, neither of whom were biologists, could have mis-identified a Holothurian (sea cucumber) - a group that are common in the deep. --Liam Mason 12:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish in the Challenger Deep? 

message: Plankton cannot possible be that smal - the smallest known cells are 0.2 um acrosss; 0.02 um would be two small to holds a genome.  Somebodys fix it! Capybara 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.02 micrometer? 

message: The Lifeforms section is currently broken into: Microscopic life, Plant life, Other marine invertebrates, Fish, and Marine mammals. That seems cumbersome... There is a great deal of overlap between microscopic life and invertebrates (plus zooplankton are currently described under microscopic??) and between microscopic life and algae. The plants section is (or should be) mostly about algae, so why call it "plant life?" And overall, invertebrates make up most of the animal life on the planet, but seem to get very relatively short mention here. Anyone have a better idea for dividing these? Also, under Fish, what does this sentence mean? "Fishes inhabit the largest (by volume) biome on Earth." Isn't that just saying fish inhabit the ocean? I don't get it. — Epastore 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize Lifeforms section? 

message: I do not like the new picture for the overview, I think the Lionfish was more dramatic.  First, the thumbnail of the new picture is not very clear (the picture itself is OK).  Second, it comes from an aquarium and it should be better to only put "real" marine life there...--Daniel Vaulot 07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - I don't see how the picture has "more drama" than that of the Lionfish. Surely better pictures out there. --Liam Mason 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture for overview ? 

message: does this exist at the moment? there is no coherent page specifically explaining distinctions between plants and animals
Charlieb63 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant / Animal Distinction Page? 

message: I noticed that the more general subject "aquatic biology" is not found here. This, of course, covers the gamut of "marine", "freshwater", and the continuum in between (like estuarine). Being a former biologist (marine mostly, I guess) and practitioner in the area, I noticed in my son's high school tour yesterday that they go from environmental science -> biology -> "marine" biology. When asked about field work, the teacher pointed out how hard it was for the students to make it out to full day field trips to the coast (nearby, actually). Then when walking out and explaining to my son that they should teach "aquatic biology", not "marine biology", I passed over a bridge above a flowing, freshwater stream, remembering my days at UCSB field ecology lab setting up little experiments in the streams above Santa Barbara. Alas, the marketers have gotten ahold of biology too. ;-). Interesting fun facts sheet on FW from Canada, BTW: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/info/facts/e_quantity.htm.
~~extremetray~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremetray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does "Aquatic Biology" no longer exist? 

message: This is a spillover from a can of worms I opened up on the Seabirds page.  I pointed out the inconsistency between the first line of that page and the first line of this page - They say seabirds are adapted to live in a marine environment (with "marine" pointing here).  Here, it says (paraphrasing) marine biology is the study of life in the ocean.  Looking down further in this article, I see it mentions birds.  I don't know whether it's this article or "seabirds" that needs fixing - does marine biology study birds? Do birds live "in the ocean"? Some birds are close - penguins, auks, etc.  But most (seagulls, albatross, terns, etc.) don't spend the majority of time "in" the ocean. The problem I see is that someone clicking on "marine" in the seabird page comes here, sees the pic of a school of fish, reads that this article is about creatures that live in the ocean, and thinks that "seabird" refers only to birds that spend the majority of their time swimming underwater. Ideas? Applejuicefool 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a marine bio major, and marine biology is the study of the ocean and things that live in it. Sea Birds is a completely different study.  Even being seabirds, it's still considered Ornithology. With seabirds, they still live on land since they don't have gills (not to say all marine organisms have gills because they don't), and are just adapted to live by or on the ocean/water.  Then again marine mammals are also considered under marine biology, but most of them live under or in the water all the time. Darthgriz98 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I changed the link on Seabirds from marine biology to marine (ocean).  I think it makes more sense that way.  There is a link from marine (ocean) to marine biology. Applejuicefool 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But that also begs the question, if what you say is true, Darth, why does this page have the section on birds? What about penguins and auks? Wouldn't they be in the same boat (no pun) as marine mammals?  Applejuicefool 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been looking up, I've been going through Google to try and see if they are included at all under marine biology or if they are under a different field.  Technically, marine biology itself is the study of salt water organisms.  I'll keep looking up sources though. Darthgriz98 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got a UK Master's degree in Marine Biology - seabirds, marine mammals and reptiles were all covered at one stage or another in the course. They are also covered in a few Marine Biology textbooks including "Introduction to Marine Biology" by George Karleskint.--Liam Mason 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who added birds and reptiles, and I don't have a degree in Marine Biology. Did I get the reptiles right? And the statement about amphibians? — Epastore 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seabirds definitely belong here; the movement of productivity from marine photosynthesis is probably the most visible biological process in the marine environment (ever visited an estuary when birds are feeding?). Next point, you dont have to be able to swim to be adapted to the marine environment, waders are extremely well adapted without swimming ability (this also applies to other marine organisms). I think some of the problems highlighted in this seabird discussion, stem from some more fundamental problems with the article. I have had a quick read just now (first time I have read the article) and can see quite a few confusing statements (some of which dont actually make any sense). I will try to clean some up when time permits. Celticbattlepants (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds 

message: Suggest references be given Osborne 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: --204.100.182.77 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dophins 

message: How does Marine Biology relate to Biology itself?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.69.203 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: I noticed kelp forests are not included in the Oceanic Habitats section. I'm of the opinion that they merit inclusion; they are certainly noteworthy. Any objections? Sgt.widget (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Habitat? 

message: Hello! I will be adding to the History section of the Marine Biology Wikipedia page. Here is a little taste of what I am going to be talking about: 
The earliest instances of the study of Marine Biology can be traced back to Aristotle who made several contributions which laid the foundation for many future discoveries and were the first big steps in the early exploration period of the ocean and marine life. British naturalist, Edward Forbes was also a key player in the history of marine biology and is considered by many as the founder of the science of oceanography and marine biology. Overall, the pace of oceanographic and marine biology studies quickly accelerated during the course of the 19th century.  
The observations made in the first studies of marine biology fueled the age of discovery and exploration that followed. During this time, a vast amount of knowledge was gained about the life that exists in the oceans of the world. Many voyages contributed significantly to this pool of knowledge. Among some of the most significant are the H.M.S Beagle and the H.M.S Challenger. This era was extremely important for the history of marine biology but naturalists were still limited in their studies simply because they lacked certain technology that would allow them to accurately examine the species that lurked the deep parts of the oceans. 
The creation of marine labs was important because marine scientists had places to conduct research and process their specimens from expeditions. One of the most important marine labs are Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute where scientists stayed and conducted years of significant research and made many important findings. There were also many technological advances that further enhanced the study of marine biology. For example, sound navigation ranging, scuba diving gear, submersibles and remotely operated vehicles, to name a few, are some of the more significant technologies in marine biology which allowed naturalists to explore depths of the oceans that people once thought never existed. 
Sarakpal (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK, the section could use some decent content. I trust you will cite appropriately. Have fun. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section  

message: There's no foundation for the number 300 that appears in the introduction. The source says, "published estimates of the relative habitable volume of the marine realm range from ~10 to 300 times the habitable volume of the land." And the author's own estimate is 1367*10^6 km^3 / 2.0*10^6 km^3 = 680 times, which is very different from both 300 and the published estimates (http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/30m4r519#page-6). Therefore I am removing the statement again. Gdfusion (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  300 times? 

message: There are a couple of changes that I think would benefit this page:
1.	There should be an added section about how there has been a decline in overall marine life and the efforts to rebuild the ocean population.
2.	“Open Ocean” section is a bit weak. I think that it needs to maybe say what kinds of animals dwell in that area. Also think that that section could use a bit of information about ocean currents because they are a very relevant topic when discussing marine biology and how animals migrate.
3.	“Marine Habitats” section introduction is a bit distracting. I would maybe list the types of habitats first and then put all of the other, extra information into their appropriate categories.  
Lambe181 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested edits

message: *I'm a bit saddened to see the descent into bickering here folks. Lets stick to content not character attacks. My 2 cents worth is that it's always hard to find one single image that sums up a vast subject, and you (both) raise valid concerns. So, I'd stick with the current image until such time as someone posts some alternatives to look at. Maybe an approach similar to that taken at Ecology might be one possibility?  I'm unable to quickly find a better single image to introduce this subjects - but I'd have liked to have seen some offered for consideration. Either way, I find the current caption version a bit clumsy (and with a duff link) and the lead paragraph is of similar quality, and fails to capture the essence of the subject, and just leaves me bemused. I'm sure you're both up to working together with other editors to  improve them. (There are far better explanations of marine biology out there if one wants to look, and I'd suggest focussing on these improvements, rather than purely worrying about images at this stage. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Nick. Yes, of course the article can be improved. I'll leave you to experiencing the joys of a Wikiproject Sanitation and Stockholm Institute collaboration. In my experience you will not get constructive alternatives – just criticism, wikilawyering, and virtue signalling. If you are non-male newbie from a developing country, you might survive. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what its is worth, I think your suggestion concerning the lead image is an excellent one. However you seem to be an experienced editor, so your suggestion is unlikely to be acceptable to the current regime. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Nick Moyes, thank you! So glad to hear from a new person here. I've added an "arbitrary break" section line just before your post to indicate a "fresh start". Hope that is agreeable. I like the example at Ecology in the sense that it is a collage of images. I think a collage could work well here, too. Before proposing actual images, I would like to know if people think that the lead image of marine biology should be somewhat different to the one used at marine life so that the reader can immediately grasp the difference between the two articles? I had mentioned it above - if marine biology is "the study of..." then should this be indicated in the image, somehow? I.e. a focus on the aspect "the study of"? Compare with the lead image used at oceanography (a schematic). Some articles about fields of study use an info box, such as Paleolimnology. Or would we say it doesn't matter, and we simply use another lead image (or a collage of) "marine life" topics? EMsmile (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  P.S. and I agree with you that other aspects of the article also need improvement. For example, I am wondering if the sections on "marine habitats" and "marine life" could be condensed, given that there are sub-articles about that. I am not saying it has to be done, I am just making a suggestion. EMsmile (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be nice if User:Epipelagic could stop with those snipes and we could just return to finding good images for the proposed collage. Comments such as "you seem to be an experienced editor, so your suggestion is unlikely to be acceptable to the current regime", and the earlier ones from 1 April are really getting to me. Oh wait, perhaps they are meant to funny and I don't have the right sense of humour? Hmmmm. It just makes me sad. However, I like that the new code of conduct states: "Prolific contributions and technical expertise are not a justification for lower standards of behavior.". Anyway, I'll try hard to simply ignore such snipes in future and focus on the task at hand which is to find suitable images for the lead. If we are talking about a collage like at Ecology as per the suggestion of Nick Moyes we could discuss beforehand which 4 types of images we are after. I am currently involved in a similar, very constructive conversation here for sustainable energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Swap_images_in_the_lead? . EMsmile (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: The article claims that Station biologique de Roscoff was established in 1859, though it's own article says 1872. One might be wrong... Finn Bjørklid (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founded 1859 or 1872? 

message: Would it be smart to add the technologies currently used in this field? I feel it could be helpful and give more of a grasp and helpful to adding more material to this page. Topazflute (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  technology commonly used