Talk:Cnidaria

message: The second paragraph says there are two cell layers, surrounding a non-cellular jelly.  However, the table in the "Distinguishing features" section says there are three layers.  Which is correct?  It can't be both.
Pstemari (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cnidarians have two main, continuous layers (the epidermis of both the interior and exterior of the body). The jelly-like layer in between is acellular. However, they also have organs in that jelly-like layer (muscle and nerve fibers), so some scholars describe them as triploblastic (three-layered). This is explained in the article. (The jelly also contains amoeboid cells that have both immune and regenerative function.) IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of cell layers?

message: The article mentions that cnids can regrow after fragmentation. Would each new cnid be considered a clone of the original cnid? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Genetically, yes. But in the context of reproduction, cloning is a normal activity rather recovery after a disaster. --Philcha (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So they are technically clones in that each is genetically identical to the original, but they aren't really considered clones? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more a peculiarity of the English language - the noun "clones" refers to individuals that are genetically identical (and probably implies "produced asexually", as opposed to "identical twins"), and therefore includes regenerated fragments; but "cloning" (gerund of the verb), when used of a natural rather than lab process, refers to a normal activity rather recovery after an extermally-inflicted disaster. --Philcha (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cloning?

message: I've played around with trying to clarify the classification of subphyla and classes. I also added links to the source for the classification I used in the taxobox. The problem, of course, is that there are alternative classification schemes. As I am not a worker in the field, I have no feel for what best represents the current state of knowledge. I do feel however, that whatever classification scheme is used in the taxobox should be tied to a source. So, any dissenters to what I've done? -- Donald Albury 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification in the taxobox and the body of the test

message: some one is vandalising the page repeatedly!!Silverpal 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: they  allhave stinging cells. more complex than sponges  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.221.157 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: The basic body shape of a cnidarian consists of a sac containing a gastrovascular cavity with a single opening that functions as both mouth and anus known as a manus.
I've looked for this term elsewhere and have found no reference to it. It is not used in any invertebrate zoology texts that I've found. Vandalism? --JimmyButler (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manus 

message: The reference section is not actually considered "references" if they are not sourced within the document. Other than "additional reading" it serves no purpose. Adding a list of stately resources at the end and calling them references does not contribute to the confidence level or the accuracy of the document unless you can determine "what" and "where". That said, several of the references upon, reading, had excellent information that could be included and cited in the article.
I recommend renaming the reference section to Additional Resources or some such nonsense and merging the journal section with it. Then rename the Notes section to "references" which actually have embedded links between the document and the referenced source. Then going through and actually citing the information. 
In reality the very long "reading list" should be edited down to those most relevant or useful and the others deleted. People come to Wikipedia for the answer --- not as a hub for an infinite number of links elsewhere. 
If no one is opposed, I might dork around with it. I picked up a few skills while being beat up over the Introduction to Evolution FA concerning citations formatting and encyclopedic prose that can help a little here. I'll proceed with care .... don't want to be a Manus about it.--JimmyButler (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Congratulations on the GA for Cnidaria. This article generated some interest for me as well as my students a year ago in that a statement concerning Manus (mouth anus system) had languished there for some time. The need to correct this rather humorous factoid is what broke my self imposed Wiki-bann. It is such a delight to see the article tranformed so dramatically. Especially since the topic is probably high volume for high school students doing research on animal phyla. The before and after snap shot on this one speaks volumes about the work invested. Thank you. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "An idiom is a phrase where the words together have a meaning that is different from the dictionary definitions of the individual words, which can make idioms hard for ESL students and learners to understand." ummm .... Conversely? But your right .... in the scheme of the transformation that took place here it is a non-issue! Cheers--JimmyButler (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: I just undid a change in number of species in lead from 9,000 to 11,000:
*Not as shown in main text - see WP:LEAD.
*No source given - see WP:V and WP:CITE.
*Species counts are tricky. Those given in the article are based on formally-recognised species ("described" in the jargon) by class (jellyfish, anemones, etc.) To replace the count in the lead you'd have to find a source that gave other counts by class - one source, as summing counts of different classes by different authors would be like adding apples and oranges. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of species

message: I'm inserting a request on the talk pages for Ctenophore and Cnidaria to add an Etymology section.  The "silent c" is uncommon enough in language that I'd be very interested to know where it comes from.174.46.172.13 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link at the bottom of the page to the Wiktionary entry for Cnidaria, which indicates that it is derived from the Ancient Greek word for 'nettle'. -- Donald Albury 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: See Cnidaria#Cnidocytes. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology?

message: According to the Taxonomicon Cnideria is a phylum with Anthozoa and Medusazoa as subphyla. So why is Medusazoa redirected to Cnideria. Perhaps discussion particular to medusazoans should be removed and included in a separate article for that group.
J.H.McDonnell (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Medusozoa should have its own article rather than being redirected to Cnidaria. However material shoudl not be removed from Cnidaria, as this article is meant to be an overview of the whole phylum. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: question on redirect

message: Is this actually correct or just "for deh lolz"?
--68.158.0.237 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's for real, from a good source that counts only confirmed species rather than estimates - see details at Cnidaria#Classification. --Philcha (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Over 9000

message: I tend to write long, multi-clause sentences myself, but I found the following sentence hard to follow, and had to read it several times to be sure I understood it:
Basically, it looks like two of the groups are identified as "sessile" and "swimming", and then the scheme shifts to using orders. There are too many asides, as well. There is a shorter and simpler version of this sentence in the "Classification" section. Neither the sentence in the lede nor the one in the "Classification" section agrees with the classification in the taxobox. The lede should be a summary of the article. I'm not sure that the classification of members of Cnidaria needs to be included. A simple list of some easily recognizable members (i.e. anemones, corals, sea pens, and jellyfish) should be sufficient for the lede. -- Donald Albury 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Donald Albury. That para is about classification, not locomotion. I've edited to "the almost wholly  sessile Anthozoa (sea anemones, corals, sea pens); swimming Scyphozoa (jellyfish); Cubozoa (box jellies); and Hydrozoa, a diverse group that includes all the freshwater cnidarians as well as many marine forms, and has both sessile members such as Hydra and colonial swimmers such as the Portuguese Man o' War." --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The taxobox has one view of the taxonomy. The Taxonomicon gives no citations, authors, etc., so by WP:V it's not a 1st-class source. It is more consistent with the cladogram at Cnidaria#Family_tree. But cladistics, and especially molecular phylogeny is turning up traditional taxonomy and this may make taxoboxes obsolete. --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt taxoboxes are going away. Competing classifications are found in many articles about life forms, and we don't have a consistent way of presenting them, but infoboxes of all kinds seem to be firmly imbedded in WP culture. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph in lede 

message: "Cnidarians form an animal phylum that more complex than sponges, about as complex as ctenophores (comb jellies), and less complex than bilaterians"
An unclear sentence. It's written to say that the phylum is more complex, but appears to mean that the animals of the phylum are individually more complex.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.94.176 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "more complex" sentence

message: After reading that section that was created again, polymorphism isn't specifically about zooid differentiation, which confused the topic by suggesting that colonial zooids were the same as medusa and polyp forms in all cnidarians. I reworked it a bit to be more clear. Esoxidtalk•contribs 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polymorphism 

message: Lately Myxozoa has been shown to be a Cnidarian (as can be seen on the Myxozoa page on Wikipedia), yet that is not discussed in the evolutionary history. Also - they are more likely closer to Medusozoa than Anthozoa, so they should be deep within the Cnidarian tree and not next to Bilateria at all (the whole bilaterian debacle was because of fish fragments in the Myxozoa DNA). I don't know how to edit Wikipedia well, so I think someone should change that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erez87 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong evolutionary tree and a lack of Myxozoa 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cnidaria. 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/20070929102538/http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=11551 to http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=11551
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On this cladogram the placozoa are placed as siblings to the bilateria.  But other articles — Planulozoa, ParaHoxozoa, Diploblast — place placozoa as cousins to both Cnidaria and Bilateria. Can this discrepancy be explained in the article (or is one version less accepted)? — Henry chianski (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placozoa 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acalephae. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acalephae listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The entire article from the second sentence is so technical and loaded with specialist jargon with no explanation, that it conveys almost nothing to me, a scientifically literate person.  It needs a major revamping, preferably by someone with not so much expertise that they can't explain things in plainer language.  Zaslav (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article about Cnidaria written in simple English.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: I have moved the following question about the mesoglea (which was added to the article by an IP) to here: "* (attn: how can this be termed "non-living" when it contains nerve bundles, muscles and amoeba that function as an immune system)?)" - Donald Albury 11:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of mesoglea 

message: Note to @Spaully: actually there are large planktonic organisms. Your edit is correct, because cnidarians are not limited to eating small plankton, but your comment contains a misconception. Wikipedia's own plankton article says, "Though many planktonic species are microscopic in size, plankton includes organisms over a wide range of sizes, including large organisms such as jellyfish." IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes the revert did lead me to read about larger plankton species and realise my error. Apt name by the way! |→ Spaully ~talk~  21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plankton sizes 

message: How is phylum Cnidaria set to phylum petalonamae? An extinct clade? 76.144.49.221 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylum petalonamae?