Talk:Bilateria

message: The taxobox in Animalia and the article lists the Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Platyzoa as separate  superphyla at the same level as Deuterostomia  The article and taxobox for Bilateria, to which all these groups belong, recognizes the first three of them as members of Protostomia, correlate to  Deuterostomia, as does the classification in the talk for Animalia. There is also an article for Protostome; it & its taxobox similiarly group the three, as do the articles  for Ecdysoza, Lophotrochozoa, and Platyzoa, all supported by both embryological and molecular data. 
If these two scheme are in fact competitive analyses, surely the 2 hypotheses should at least be mentioned in all the relevant articles , instead of some silently adopting one and some the other. (I was taught protostomia, but that doesn't prove it correct) DGG 03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The classification of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa and Platyzoa as equal to Deuterostomia is relatively recent, and likely not fully accepted. Yes, the two schemes should be mentioned in the various articles, but we don't need a detailed discussion in every article; perhaps Protostome is the best place for that. -- Donald Albury 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a recent paper supporting the monophyly of the platyzoans? I've been trying to appraise myself of the most current science for the Lophotrochozoa article, and the most recent and methodologically rigorous study I've found (Paps et al. 2009) indicates that Platyzoa should be considered a paraphyletic group allied with Lophotrochozoa, with Platyhelminthes as a close sister to the "Spiralia", and the other proposed members as outgroups more closely related to Lophotrochozoa than Ecdysozoa. --24.5.147.203 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: differences in classification of superphyla

message: I don't know much about this at all, but this reference suggests these distinctions date back to the Cambrian era. 
* http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
There probably should be a paragraph concerning (postulated) evolutionary origins.  
MaxEnt 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambrian

message: I'm no expert in the phylogeny of animal phyla, but is the phylogeny given (cited to Nielsen) at all credible?  It looks like a rather old, and now obsolete, version to me (particularly in presenting the Bryozoa and Entoprocta as forming a single clade which I believe was discarded quite some time ago, and uniting the annelida and arthropoda which was conventional wisdom until the late 20th century or so but which I'm not sure is widely held any more). Kingdon 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like no older than 2001, but it's troublesome by the fact that Nielsen proposed an alternative phylogeny about 2 years later, in order to solve the discrepancies between morphological data and molecular dito. Therefore Nielsen's phylogeny of 2001 should be considered obsolete. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newer articles based on molecular methods tend to agree in dividing the Bilateria into the three supergroups Lophotrocozoa, Ecdysozoa and Deuterostoma. The arthropods (or Panarthropoda) should definitely not be close to either the Annelida or the molluscs. Seven years is a very long time in phylogeny these days, and the tree should definitely be exchanged for a newer one. Jonht (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nielsen phylogeny 

message: 20,000 species are quoted, whereas the Echinoderm page only says 7,000 species - which is correct?
--Graminophile 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Echinoderms (Taxobox)

message: *Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution contains a nice summary and cites the peer-reviewed source. -- Philcha (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Are nouns and adjectives confused in our articles?  Or am I confused (just as likely)?  
Bilateria is a noun, plural.  What is its singular?
Bilateral is an adjective.
Bilaterian is an adjective; Encarta lists it only as an adjective.  Examples from Google's first page:  bilaterian fossils, bilaterian features, bilaterian animals, bilaterian ancestors, bilaterian evolution, the Bilaterian superphylum -- but also just one use as noun: "the early origin of bilaterians".
Can bilaterian also be a noun?  It looks like it here: "The urbilaterian (< German ur- 'original') is the hypothetical last common ancestor of the bilaterian clade, i.e., all animals having a bilateral symmetry.", but seems wrong (to me) elsewhere.
Thanks.  - Hordaland (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am an American and apparently also a bilaterian.  Not sorry I asked. :-)  - Hordaland (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nouns and adjectives 

message: It appears that last year the indentations of the taxa in the infobox were modified which inadvertently moved the nematode worms and the arthropods out of ecdysozoa.  I have partially reverted this.  But if the modification was intentional, then please feel free to restore the page to how it was before I edited it.
Bwrs (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: modified infobox 

message: "The bilateria , bilaterians, or triploblasts, are animals with bilateral symmetry, "
I'd like to discuss this. Although all members of Bilateria have bilateral symmetry, I'm not sure it has been established that all animals with bilateral symmetry are Bilateria. Does anyone have a ref on this?Ordinary Person (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: lede wording

message: Is another possible alternative xenambulacraria being nested within a natural deuterostome group? 74.101.251.49 (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two possible trees 

message: Several recent studies refer to the Chordata+Protostomia group as "Centroneuralia", removing confusion with "Nephrozoa" which implies a Deuterostomia+Protostomia grouping. Should this be followed in the alternate tree shown in the article grouping Chordata and Protostomia? Here, this grouping is referred to as Nephrozoa, which clashes with the common use of that term. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is important not only to mention it in text but also present an alternative phylogram. Btw, the high level of detail of the phylograms and taxobox is counterproductiv - the higher-level clades inside Spiralia also are far from certain.Polyzoa is back: The effect of complete gene sets on the placement of Ectoprocta and Entoprocta - Science Petr Karel (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centroneuralia