![]() | Cnidaria has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hi Wikipedia! Please check the ratings for the Article. It somehow became 26,000 or more. Thanks! Priority 2
|
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)
Number of cell layers requires clarification. It makes sense to me if the author is referring to cell layers during very early development, but it doesn't refer to that anywhere. What am I missing?
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)
The Reagan era link leads to a disambiguation that discusses only the surname Reagan. Does an appropriate article for the biological era exist, or is this entire sentence vandalism?
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)
some one is vandalising the page repeatedly!! Silverpal 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
they allhave stinging cells. more complex than sponges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.221.157 ( talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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) Corrected ... wow this page is heavily vandalized with very immature edits. Guess it's those school kids doing projects in biology classes.-- JimmyButler ( talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Philcha, this sentence from the lead is grammatically incorrect: "Their distinguishing feature is cnidocytes...".
"Cnidocytes" is a plural word, hence the statement should read "Their distinguishing features are cnidocytes...". However the syntax here implies that cnidocytes are not the only distinguishing feature(s). That's why I changed the text to "They are characterized by cnidocytes..." with the edit summary "Awkward singular/plural conflict changed". Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
I just undid a change in number of species in lead from 9,000 to 11,000:
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)
According to the Taxonomicon Cnideria [1]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)
Is this actually correct or just "for deh lolz"? -- 68.158.0.237 ( talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"cnidarians, although considered more "primitive" than bilaterians, have a wider range of genes, and that bilaterians have introduced few new genes and that most have lost several—this reduction is most striking among the ecdysozoan group of protostomes, which includes arthropods and nematodes.[44] In fact cnidarians, and especially anthozoans (sea anemones and corals), retain some genes that are present in bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians."
Use of "although" seems to imply that what follows contradicts the idea of cnidarians being more primitive than bilaterians. But anything found in "bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians" is most certainly a primitive trait (=found in common ancestor though perhaps lost in some descendants) for animals. I understand the intent here -- that some people think of "primitive" as "more simple/crude" -- but I think this rather adds confusion than clarifies, by somewhat confusing the biological definition of primitive (primitive characters = those found in common ancestor, as opposed to derived characters) with the colloquial meaning. I think simply removing the clause "although considered more 'primitive' than bilaterians" would be best. Vultur ( talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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:
Cnidarians are classified into four main groups: sessile Anthozoa ( sea anemones (not sessile but only move 3-4 inches an hour), corals, and 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.
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)
"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)
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. Esox id talk• contribs 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
The refs in this article are really dated and everything needs to be updated. Cnidaria is sister to placozoa or bilateria. Jmv2009 ( talk) 18:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@Apokryltaros edited the page to state that myxozoans are unicellular. They are not. See, e. g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282249669_Myxozoa. They have few cells, but more than one. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
How is phylum Cnidaria set to phylum petalonamae? An extinct clade? 76.144.49.221 ( talk) 13:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Cnidaria has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hi Wikipedia! Please check the ratings for the Article. It somehow became 26,000 or more. Thanks! Priority 2
|
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)
Number of cell layers requires clarification. It makes sense to me if the author is referring to cell layers during very early development, but it doesn't refer to that anywhere. What am I missing?
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)
The Reagan era link leads to a disambiguation that discusses only the surname Reagan. Does an appropriate article for the biological era exist, or is this entire sentence vandalism?
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)
some one is vandalising the page repeatedly!! Silverpal 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
they allhave stinging cells. more complex than sponges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.221.157 ( talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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) Corrected ... wow this page is heavily vandalized with very immature edits. Guess it's those school kids doing projects in biology classes.-- JimmyButler ( talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Philcha, this sentence from the lead is grammatically incorrect: "Their distinguishing feature is cnidocytes...".
"Cnidocytes" is a plural word, hence the statement should read "Their distinguishing features are cnidocytes...". However the syntax here implies that cnidocytes are not the only distinguishing feature(s). That's why I changed the text to "They are characterized by cnidocytes..." with the edit summary "Awkward singular/plural conflict changed". Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
I just undid a change in number of species in lead from 9,000 to 11,000:
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)
According to the Taxonomicon Cnideria [1]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)
Is this actually correct or just "for deh lolz"? -- 68.158.0.237 ( talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"cnidarians, although considered more "primitive" than bilaterians, have a wider range of genes, and that bilaterians have introduced few new genes and that most have lost several—this reduction is most striking among the ecdysozoan group of protostomes, which includes arthropods and nematodes.[44] In fact cnidarians, and especially anthozoans (sea anemones and corals), retain some genes that are present in bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians."
Use of "although" seems to imply that what follows contradicts the idea of cnidarians being more primitive than bilaterians. But anything found in "bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians" is most certainly a primitive trait (=found in common ancestor though perhaps lost in some descendants) for animals. I understand the intent here -- that some people think of "primitive" as "more simple/crude" -- but I think this rather adds confusion than clarifies, by somewhat confusing the biological definition of primitive (primitive characters = those found in common ancestor, as opposed to derived characters) with the colloquial meaning. I think simply removing the clause "although considered more 'primitive' than bilaterians" would be best. Vultur ( talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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:
Cnidarians are classified into four main groups: sessile Anthozoa ( sea anemones (not sessile but only move 3-4 inches an hour), corals, and 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.
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)
"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)
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. Esox id talk• contribs 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
The refs in this article are really dated and everything needs to be updated. Cnidaria is sister to placozoa or bilateria. Jmv2009 ( talk) 18:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@Apokryltaros edited the page to state that myxozoans are unicellular. They are not. See, e. g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282249669_Myxozoa. They have few cells, but more than one. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
How is phylum Cnidaria set to phylum petalonamae? An extinct clade? 76.144.49.221 ( talk) 13:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)