Talk:Flatworm

message: Is it pronounced "platyhelminteez" or "platyhelmintheez"? Twilight Realm 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: like all other animals, flatworms do 
I may be wrong, but I thought adult cestodes (and many other gut-dwelling animals) were effectively anaerobic.
:That looks very likely, but the sources I've seen, including my main textbooks, don't say so. If you know a source, that would be good news. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respiration 

message: Does ANYONE know what flatworms eat? I've been trying for ages to find out, and I was a bit dissapointed to not find the answer under the feeding section. Egregius 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeding 

message: Platyhelminthes use flame cells for excretion. Perhaps that would be a nice addition to the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.236.121.153 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excretion? 

message: Is the type of worm that fences with its penis really called Hancockanus? Or is that some sort of sick, perverted, joke?66.157.207.150 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's had that name since 1876. I presume that someone named Hancock was being honored by the name, and it may well be that the name was applied before the behavior was observed. -- Donald Albury 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hancockanus???'' 

message: I've just been given a book for my birthday, about marine life, called "The Deep" (Margaret Keenan, Taj Books, 2007).
The page on flatworms starts:
:The flatworms (Phylum Platyhelminthes, Greek "platy": flat; "helminth": worm) are a phylum of relatively simple soft-bodied invertebrate animals. With about 25,000 known species they are the largest phylum of acoelomates. Flatworms are found in marine, freshwater, and even damp terrestrial environments. A troublesome terrestrial example is the New Zealand flatworm, Arthurdendyus triangulatus, which rapidly colonized large areas of Ireland and Scotland since its unintentional introduction in the 1960s and has since destroyed most of the indigenous earthworms.[citation needed] Most flatworms are free-living, but many are parasitic. There are four classes: Trematoda (flukes), Cestoda (tapeworms), Monogenea, and Turbellaria.
This is an almost exact copy of the Wiki text, and they didn't even remove the [citation needed] tag!  (The citation was added to the Wiki article on 14:49, 24 July 2007 Rursus).
I have subsequently checked several of the articles in the book, and they were all almost word-for-word copies of the Wiki articles of the same name.  (And more importantly: I checked the article histories and found that the copied text was older than the publication date of the book).
I'll send this info to Wikipedia's copyright team shortly (and possibly to the book's publishers as well). Wardog (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that as all text in Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, anyone may freely copy and modify the text, even for commercial purposes. The book may be in violation of the terms of the GFDL in that all GFDL-licensed material copied and/or modified must also be made available under the GFDL, i.e., the book must state clearly that the material is licensed under the GFDL. -- Donald Albury 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism of (not by) Wikipedia! 

message: These look useful: --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, etc.

message: Editors, the lead is very big, can this be shortened? see WP:LEAD. Bluptr (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too long and confusing for broad audiences 

message: Firstly, to resolve this issue.  Let's invoke fair use and paste the authors passage concerning organic farming as the article is not freely available for discussion.
::The organic food revolution in industrialized countries -
::the hidden menace
::In parallel with increasing public anxiety over the emergence of
::genetically-modified foods in industrialised countries has been a trend
::towards ever increasing public demand for organically-grown produce.
::In commercial response, most, if not all, of the major food retailers in
::the UK have now a stated policy of removal of genetically-modified
::foods from their shelves with an increase in capacity for organic
::produce. While such trends may appear to be eco-friendly on face value,
::there are potential hidden dangers for consumers. Over the past 20
::years, the use of artificial fertilisers on farmland to facilitate an intensive
::agriculture focused on the rapid production of uniform products for
::mass consumption has led to a massive reduction in the use of organic
::manures on the land. During the same time period, intensive usage of
::anthelmintics in domestic livestock for the same purpose of maximising
::productivity has led to massive reductions in parasite burdens. Taking
::both factors into account, one can see the reason for the virtual elimination
::of parasitic disease as a major clinical problem in industrialised
::countries. However, changing practices for economic or social reasons can
::provide parasites with new opportunities for transmission which they will
::exploit with gusto. After all, this is what evolution has gifted parasites to
::do. While little evidence exists of the nutritive benefits of organic produce,
::the change from the relative sterility of inorganic farming to an organic
::culture system may turn back the pages of history to the time when
::parasitic disease in the population was the norm. After all, it is a fact that
::under natural conditions, all vertebrates (including man) are probably
::universally infected with at least one helminth parasite - is this really to
::where we wish to return? How many of us who live in the countryside or
::who drive through such en route to our places of employment have not
::been subjected to mighty olfactory attack as farmers spread 'muck' on
::their fields? Such spreadings usually have large flocks of attendant gulls,
::many of which defecate over a wide area including in our parks, playing
::fields and reservoirs. The factors are thus already in place for the
::resurgence of helminth parasitic disease - one can be sure that it remains
::a matter of when, rather than if, this will occur.
Secondly, let's analyze what, if any proof is presented therein for the claim being made herein...that's right there is no actual emperically based research being cited to bolster this authors OPINION.  The claims of these authors with regards organic farming rest on data that does not exist.  It is no wonder that this article has only been cited 8 times in 10 years, it's fringe. 141.39.166.159 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in British Medical Bulletin, i.e. in a reliable source. If you can produce good sources stating that organic farming does not increase risk of parasites, cite them and we have a debate that the article needs to summarise. Until then, the text stays as is. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: evidence about organic farming II

message: I recomend a purge of all claims relating to the shaw article (currently citation number 20).  141.39.166.159 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not going to happen. If you wish to contest the points that are based on Northrop-Clewes and Shaw (2000) "Parasites" you will have to find at least one good source that presents opposing views - see WP:Vand [[WP:RS]. --Philcha (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recomended Purge

message: In many literature I find it written as "Plathelminthes", without the "y". I include it in the first paragraph, if there´s no problem with it. --Feministo (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative spelling

message: Domain Eukarya isn't required here. It just clutters up the infobox. 78.151.23.110 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain Eukarya 

message: Hi,
The table seems to be making the page look messed up, but I have no idea as to how I can fix it. Could someone care to fix it please? Thanks! Devrit 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format error 

message: It had long been recognized that this classification was artificial, and in 1985 Ehlers[9] proposed a phylogenetically more correct classification where the massively polyphyletic "Turbellaria" was split into a dozen orders, and Trematoda, Monogenea and Cestoda were joined in the new order Neodermata. However, the classification presented here is the early, traditional, classification, as it still is the one used everywhere except in scientific articles.[3]
Isn't this about the opposite of what we are supposed to do on wikipedia? If we were writing this encyclopedia on vellum in the XVII century, would we say that the Sun revolves around the Earth because heliocentrism is something that is only found in scientific books?? My question is: can I fix the taxonomy, or am I going to be instantly reverted by some well-meaning pest that thinks I confuse children and geezers that studied before the discovery of DNA? complainer (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The classification should be presented in its current form. A section or paragraph talking about the old classification in four classes would be necessary, but the current, phylogenetic classification is the most important. Piterkeo (talk) 16:04, 02 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy

message: Hi all,
There seems to be an error in the infobox. It says "Unrecognised rank: Unrecognised rank: Phylum- Invertebrates". Did someone edit the template? It doesn't seem to just be on this page. Anyway, I'm not really experienced with template editing, so I'll leave it for one of you fine fellows.
Thanks,
Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invertebrates? 

message: *Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
*hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
*JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
*https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
*REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
*http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
*SEE ALSO:
*http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
*http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
*http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com
--Gary Dee 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malware Link Removal 

message: (Pardon my jokey title, but, I've a question; I'm not a person who really knows much about flatworms, but, this seems to be incongruous
In the 2nd paragraph is the foloowing sentence; ...since the turbellarians have since been proven not to be monophyletic, this classification is now deprecated....', but, shortly below is the following sentence: '...The remaining Platyhelminthes form a monophyletic group..
Isn't this contradictory? Just wondering...[[User:UNOwenNYC
:There is no contradiction at all. Turbellarians are not monophyletic because the parasitic flatworms evolved from them. "The remaining Platyhelminthes" is not the same as "turbellarians". Historically the flatworms were divided in 4 groups: Turbellaria (Acoela, Nemertodermatida, Catenulida, Polycladida, Tricladida, Macrostomida, Rhabdocoela, Prolecithophora, Lecithoepitheliata, Proseriata), Cestoda, Trematoda and Monogenea. This classification is deprecated because Turbellaria is not monophyletic. The phylogenetic classification includes two groups: Catenulida and Rhabditophora (Polycladida, Tricladida, Macrostomida, Rhabdocoela, Prolecithophora, Lecithoepitheliata, Proseriata, Cestoda, Trematoda and Monogenea). And Acoela and Nemertodermatida are not flatworms at all. — Piter Keo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Is they, or isn't they'? 😉 

message: According to a recent molecular study, flatworms originated 839 million years ago.
OP-MOLB150055 835..845 (silverchair.com) PhiPedia (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That date sounds erroneous, as animals had not yet diverged from sponges.  That, and the fossil range is for the age of the earliest fossils, not molecular evidence.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flatworm fossil range should be pushed back