Talk:Bryozoa

message: Can we get a picture of a living one? -FZ 01:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried to post a video of a live one, but it got denied because of the nazi mods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Could we have a taxobox on this? I'd do it myself if I knew the slightest thing about the topic. Soo 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy help request

message: I understand that bryozoa have a simple nervous system.  Can somebody include brief information on it? Jyoshimi 00:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nervous System 

message: I have been told that our irrigation system on our golf course has the Bryozoa organism growing in it and they are flushing it with some type of fungicide. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.125.239 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Bryozoa fresh water types grow in golf course irrigation systems 

message: I propose that Ectoprocta simply be made a redirect to Bryozoa. The terms are generally synonymous today, and the Bryozoa article already includes a paragraph describing Endoprocts and their former placement within Bryozoa. This isn't really a question of which term is better, but whether it is better to have one article or two. Kingdon 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done this. Kingdon 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Ectoprocta into Bryozoa 

message: Hopefully useful for getting this to GA --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources & notes

message: *Professional photosensitive eczema of fishermen by contact with bryozoans: disabling occupational dermatosis
*Applied palaeontology by Robert Wynn Jones (), pub. : "Dogger bank itch", possibly due to chemical defences (p. 116) --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: And humans

message: *18S rRNA suggests that Entoprocta are protostomes, unrelated to Ectoprocta (Mackey et al, 1996; Journal of Molecular Evolution; doi: 10.1007/BF02352285)
*Evidence from Hox genes that bryozoans are lophotrochozoans (Passamaneck and Halanych; 2004; Evolution & Development, 6:4, 275–281 )
*Lophotrochozoan phylogeny assessed with LSU and SSU data: Evidence of lophophorate polyphyly (Passamaneck and Halanych; July 2006; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 20-28)
*Spiralian Phylogenomics Supports the Resurrection of Bryozoa Comprising Ectoprocta and Entoprocta (Hausdorf et al; 2007; Molecular Biology and Evolution; 24(12):2723-2729; doi:10.1093/molbev/msm214)
*The higher phylogeny of Phylactolaemate bryozoans inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences (Wood & Lore; Bryozoan Studies, 2004) 
*The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen, 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology  42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685 ) - agin Lophophorata on morphological grounds
*Defining phyla: morphological and molecular clues to metazoan evolution (Nielsen; 2003; Evolution & Development)
*Phylogenomic analyses of lophophorates (brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans) confirm the Lophotrochozoa concept (Helmkampf et al; 2008; Proc. R. Soc. B)
*The first comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Bryozoa (Ectoprocta) based on combined analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial genes (Fuchs et al; 2009; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
*First molecular estimate of cyclostome bryozoan phylogeny confirms extensive homoplasy among skeletal characters used in traditional taxonomy (Waeschenbach; July 2009!; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
*Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater bryozoans (Ectoprocta, Phylactolaemata) inferred from mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences (Okuyama et al;2006; Zoologica Scripta)
*Summarizing discussion looks like a ch of a book, poss conf proceedingsl latest cited works are 2007 - useful if can pin down.
*The new view of animal phylogeny (Halanych; 2004; Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.) - good on hist of theories
*Multigene analysis of lophophorate and chaetognath phylogenetic relationships (Helmkampf et al; 2008; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
*Bryozoan studies 2001 (ch "Deconstructing bryozoans ..", pp 93ff; Dewel et al; 2002) - nice statement of phylo problems; "highly derived"
*Convergence in the Feeding Apparatuses of Lophophorates and Pterobranch Hemichordates Revealed by 18S rDNA: An Interpretation (Halanych; 2006; The Biological Bulletin) - Pterobranch's "lophophores" aren't
*Lophotrochozoan mitochondrial genomes (Vallès & Boore; 2006; Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 46, Number 4, pp. 544-557) - good descr of phylo history --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Phylogeny

message: *Bryozoa -Moss or lace animals the best I saw in Google images
*Bryozoa --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: "[edit] Interaction with humans
Bryozoa 
Bryozoa generally do not interact with humans as something of a rule. This is due to a longstanding feud with humans after an incident in 1922 when a colony of Bryozoa were involved in a scuffle with an unknown man over a disagreement regarding coleslaw. Charles McRogersonstone - a member of the colony - was quoted after the incident as saying It was truly awful. I had no idea that soggy carrot could inflict such damage.
"
Removing this bullshit because it reeks of vandailsm to me. Sorry for my non wikipedian style of informing you of this, I'm new to the concept of spreading knowledge in a positive manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: # Per ratioale. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: if a video would be of interest... http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2009/07/01  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKEdwards (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Is the redlink in the article supposed to be cephalopods? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks.  I fixed it and also added "modern". Wilson44691 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cephalods?? 

message: The intro says "Some colonies of classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids". What does classes mean in this context? In some classes there are species where many individuals form colonies where ...; In some colonies (namely the colonies of particular species) each individual belongs to one of several classes. There are differences in form an function between individuals of different classes. OR ... --Ettrig (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thanks for pointing that out! Is "Colonies of some classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids,..." better? --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This implies that division into types is the same for all species in the class, for all classes. Is this true? --Ettrig (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer may be in the main text, complete with refs - the phrase you rightly questioned was in the lead, which is a ( ? light-weight ?) summary. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it seems I must keep reading. Pterobranchs ==> Pterobranches ? This word is linked to a redirect page. Change link to Pterobranchia? --Ettrig (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pterobranchs" is correct and is the name for the actual animals. "Pterobranchia" is the name of the classification. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What classes? 

message: After the Cheilostomata are introduced in the lead, the following sentences refer to all bryozoa, not just the Cheilostomata, right?  I think that could be made clearer—for instance, "A few bryozoan species can creep..." —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Autozooids supply nutrients to non-feeding zooids by channels that vary between classes" signals the switch from one class (Cheilostomata)  to all classes. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, now that you mention it, but I think it needs to be signaled one sentence earlier, as I'd say the reader could easily think that only Cheilostomata species can creep.  (Or is that true?) I'll reply to your comments below later. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "legs" are a specific application of "vibracula" zooids, peculiar to Cheilostomata, which has the largest repertoire of zooids. --Philcha (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  I think the sentence in the lead about creeping (if it belongs in the lead at all) should say that it's pecular to Cheilostomata. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately I think there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused: the term "bryozoa" has a slim majority over "ectoprocta", but not be much, and many sources play safe by using mentioning both terms in their introductions; and some sources have revived the older idea that "bryozoa"  includes both ectoprocts and entoprocts :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I'd suggest mentioning in that paragraph in the lead that the old idea has been revived, maybe with "In the taxonomy followed here, though..." —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If I saw "Both  ..." I expect a statement that applies to both approaches. I suggest the alternative would be e.g. "morphological analyses indicate that ..., while molecular phylogeny analyses ...." However, if you can suggest wording you find less ambiguous but clear and concise, I'd be interested. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're saying here.  I agree that "both", as in the present article, means the statement applies to both approaches, so "Both A and B disagree" means "A disagrees and so does B".  If you mean that morphological analyses indicate one thing and molecular-phylogeny analyses indicate something different, I'd suggest "Morphological analyses disagree with molecular-phylogeny analyses about bryozoans' relationships with entoprocts," etc.  Another possibility is "Morphological analyses and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree..." but I think my first suggestion is clearer. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bryozoa. 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  tag to http://www.marinebiotech.org/bryostatin.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325233234/http://www.wooster.edu/geology/Taylor%26Wilson2003.pdf to http://www3.wooster.edu/geology/taylor%26Wilson2003.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bryozoa. 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/20141015183508/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015183508/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720172410/http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/bryozoa/index.html to http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/bryozoa/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says, "One genus is solitary and the rest are colonial." (Introduction)
It also says, "They are the only major phylum of exclusively clonal animals, and they are all colonial ..."
I'm pretty sure that those sentences do not agree. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed not, I chopped the second bit. Most of us discovered early in our editing careers that the word "all" was to be used with extreme caution, if ever... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryozoans. Some are solitary but all are colonial. Wait. 

message: I don't have time or skills to do the update here, but bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian of China and Australia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04033-w
Wilson44691 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian 

message: What animals are in Bryozoa and what class are they in? 100.8.89.159 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Bryozoa is a phylum. It includes several classes. "Classes" is in the article's table of contents. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which animals are bryozoans and what class are they in 

message: Citation 12 'introduction to bryozans' seems like it's not a very informative source 70.189.72.110 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It's hard to know how independently vetted the site is, so it would be nice to have an additional reliable source for any statements solely supported by this source. However, it's not a source I'd reject out of hand. Note that the page being linked has further links to other parts of the site, so there's more information than what is just on the front page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 12 is not a professional source