![]() | Flatworm 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone have examples of flatworms that have multiple openings to their guts (as is referred to in the page)? -- Mperkins 03:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This should probably be incorporated into an external link at some point. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/video/tv_high.html?ep_hunt_explo2_mov_hi 06:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In acoelomate flatworms, now thought to be unrelated to the Platyhelminthes... --unsigned comment
New species of flatworm found: Imogine lateotentare. They have an interesting way of reproduction. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/what-lurks-beneath--fleshsucking-sex-fiends/2006/01/20/1137734154394.html Since I'm not into this kinda stuff I'll leave it up to others if this actually needs mentioning and if so, how to go about it. -- Mais
Is it pronounced "platyhelminteez" or "platyhelmintheez"? Twilight Realm 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The latter. Cerealkiller13 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
like all other animals, flatworms do I may be wrong, but I thought adult cestodes (and many other gut-dwelling animals) were effectively anaerobic.
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)
I read on www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html, that flatworms eat other small worms, insects, and microscopic matter.- Erika
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).
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)ShokuMasterLord
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:
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)
These look useful: -- Philcha ( talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Editors, the lead is very big, can this be shortened? see WP:LEAD. Bluptr ( talk) 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a technical template to the page, because the discussion of classification in the lead section is highly confusing, particularly for a broad audience. I would suggest condensing the explanation and leaving the details for the body of the article CameronNemo ( talk) 07:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's how this article's content breaks down in accordance with the GA criteria:
I hope this helps improve the article. Unfortunately, in its present state, it does not meet the GA criteria and can't be listed. Once the issues are addressed, it can be renominated at WP:GAN. Dr. Cash ( talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting a new GA review of this article. I'll work my way through it, but first I'd like to raise some points concerning the lead.
More to come as I work my way through the article. Looie496 ( talk) 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496, thanks for stepping up so quickly. -- Philcha ( talk)
Since I sort of specialize in "popularizing", let me take a shot here:
Feel free to reject, revise, or whatever. Looie496 ( talk) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Next section: basically good, but I would make a couple of changes. First, I think the table needs a sentence to introduce it. Second, I think the table should be simplified a bit. The differences between cnidarians and ctenophores are not really relevant to this article, so I would suggest combining the two categories, and removing the first two lines of the table. As it is, they distract attention and make the table harder to read. Also it might be worth saying "(comb jellies)" when first mentioning ctenophores, since they are a rather obscure group. Looie496 ( talk) 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This table is a train wreck. I would have tried to fix it, but I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a fourth column, if two of the headings should be merged, or if one of them should be removed completely.-- 24.16.130.76 ( talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Having pushed you to shorten the lead, I now find myself having to say that the first paragraph of this section belongs in the lead. I really think it does, though -- it is comprehensive, easy to understand, and extremely informative about the basic biology of these creatures -- for example, it explains why flatworms are flat. I think perhaps this material could simply be tacked onto the first paragraph of the lead, except for the first sentence.
In the paragraph "Most platyhelminths…", the "since" in the 2nd sentence makes it into a just-so story, and oughtn't to be stated that way (although it's hard to see how it could be wrong).
In the 4th paragraph, "level of concentration" is redundant -- concentration is itself a type of level. This phrase is used twice.
In the 5th paragraph, perhaps clarify that the head end is the end where the mouth is located. (It could be taken as the end where the nervous system is concentrated, which would make this circular.) Looie496 ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Turbellaria: The only issue I have with this section is that I think it would be good to restate that the Acoela are now known to have a completely different phylogeny than the others. This message is present in earlier parts of the article but it wouldn't be hard for a reader to have missed it. The other thing is that if you are going to mention both planarians and seriates, you should say somewhere that planarians are seriates.
Trematoda: I suggest defining "holdfast" briefly in the article -- the word is used multiple times and will probably be unfamiliar to most readers.
Digenea: You might consider adding a text paragraph to recap the story from the figure. This snail-to-fish-to-land-animal-to-snail is so amazing that it deserves to be fully spelled out. Also I think it is worth mentioning that schistosomes belong to this group. Looie496 ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
References
WalkerAnderson2001PlatyhelminthesInAnderson
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I think that the lead is very big, can the amount of information in the lead be brought down or made brief? (See WP:LEAD )-- Bluptr ( talk) 09:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
First item: it seems to me that the first paragraph ought to make clear that synapomorphies are critical for "classical classification" but don't come into play in genetically based approaches, which have been taking over.
Second item: near end of 2nd paragraph, "agreed that both are more closely related to cnidarians (jellyfish, etc.) than other bilaterians are". I think this is wrong -- all bilaterians should be equidistant from cnidarians. Otherwise cnidarians would be a sister group of acoelomorpha.
In 2nd-to-last paragraph, might be worth saying that the sister group, Gastrotricha, are "tiny aquatic worms that feed on microalgae, bacteria, and protozoans", or something like that.
Last paragraph: if the traditional turbellarians include the acoelomorpha, they are paraphyletic for more reasons than the sentence states. Looie496 ( talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm passing this article for GA now. Although there are still improvements that could be made, I am satisfied with its current state enough to feel no qualms about passing it. Looie496 ( talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have evidence or citations for the claims in the posted statement:
The threat of platyhelminth parasites to humans in developed countries is rising because of organic farming, the popularity of raw or lighty-cooked foods, and imports of meat, sea food and salad vegetables from high-risk areas."
To me this statement infers negligence towards public health on the part of organic farming that seems out line with my understanding organic farming practice. Given that organic farming predates what we have come to now call conventional farming, one would not only have to accept that the intent of conventional farming was primarily to prevent human disease (instead of other more prevalent reasons like boosting crop yields with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides), but also that returning to organic farming is to willfully depart from this lofty ambition.
Don't get me wrong, that isn't to say that there is some underlaying logic to justify the statement. If conventional farming practice has managed to reduce the risk of platyhelminth parasitesto humans, then returning to organic farming may call a return to the risk - then again, it may not if you consider our more increased understanding of food handling and preparation since the rise of conventional farming. Who's to say? Where is the evidence? The statement needs support to uphold this logic.
Without including the evidence or a citation to support this statement as it is currently worded basically amounts to opinion and without the objective detachment of scientific evidence, or even a disclaimer of supposition, it exposes this scientific article to the politics of heated public debate over organic vs conventional.
Frankly, I (obviously) have strong opinions on the subject of organic farming and I took offense to the statement - a scientific article shouldn't offend me and get me all fired up. Heck, I was trying to learn about worms so I can better understand vermi-composting, not looking for debate. If the statement has scientific backing, please include it.
Thanks. Moose Meat Stew ( talk) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my aim is not to criticize credibility, so much as it is to suggest that the current incarnation of this article does not making it easy for the reader to investigate the source for this particular assertion against organic farming, and thereby determine the context from which the statement was drawn, due to the lack of a direct and specific citation which requires the reader to wade through a list of twenty-five references, five further readings, and six external links for more information. I'd be more than happy to review the source to draw my own conclusions around organic farming and parasitic risks if only someone were able to provide assistance in narrowing down where the idea came from since I have little desire to become a subject matter expert on the complete biology of flatworms.
At the risk of beleaguering the point, when reading the statement through the lens of "pro-organic", the suggestion that organic farming increases threat of parasitic flatworm infection makes as much sense to me as if I were to suggest there were is an increased risk in ankle injury due to walking. I know for a fact that people have been walking for a long time and that this practice in and of itself should not increase injury risk over what it has been at some point during walking history. My statement would be down right inflammatory if referenced as a reason why people should get back in their cars instead of walking. Organic farming was all there was long before the invention of pesticides, we just didn't have any need to call it anything other than farming at that time. The statement suggests to me that if we were to revert to only organic farming that parasitic flatworm infestations would rise unchallenged as there is no mechanism in organic practices to deal with it. That seems narrow-sighted.
Without the details to frame this otherwise anti-organic comment, or at least specific citation to explore for those of us so piqued, there is a risk that this (probably innocent) statement could be misused in contexts outside of the scope of this article. My imagination conjures up someone out there citing this article to support the outlandish claim that organic produce will give you worms. I'm merely suggesting that with the aim of objectivity, either the idea be expanded to include the details, the wording be reconsidered, or the source for that specific assertion be indicated directly at the end of the sentence for the benefit of the reader.
I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion. Moose Meat Stew ( talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the direction (and you patience). I apologize if my understanding of the referencing practice in the lead is a bit novice.
I have (now) read the Northrop-Clewes paper section about "the hidden menace" of organic farming. They are absolutely correct in that spraying feces on your field will make you sick by spreading all sorts of baddies. Unfortunately their broad-stroked swipe at organic farming neglects some key points.
Although they didn't delve into it, Northrop and Clewes actually touch on the problem in the header of the passage itself. "The organic food revolution in industrialized countries -the hidden menace" alludes to the fact that an improper marriage of organic and industrial practice can create problems. Unfortunately, the passage seems to promptly takes a tone against organic farming and carries this position though the article going so far as attacking organic farming as "turning back the pages of history" and it even makes a call to ones senses as an argument. I mean, really, come on. Can the fact that manure stinks be a scientific argument against it? I don't see anyone perfuming their house with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic practices do not all come from the days of lore and can, with some ingenuity and creativity, be adapted to the demands of industrial output. While Northrop and Clews do make a point about manure as a potential carrier, I can hardly consider their passage a definitive account of organic practice.
There is a good book by Michael Pollan called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that covers the implications of industrial food production, organic food production, and the practice of hunting and gathering. It goes a long way to exposing some harsh misconceptions about how we grow, gather, transport, think and feel about our food as well as exploring the impact our efforts have on both the environment and our communities. He exposes some prime examples of where organic meets industrial and shows where it works and where it doesn't. If you have some time and the interest, it is a great read.
May I suggest that the passages regarding organic farming in this article be reworded somehow. Blaming organic farming simply carries over whatever sentiment Northrop and Clewes hold against organic farming. I don't think the idea of manure as a carrier is without merit, but perhaps this article should simply addresses the use of improperly prepared manure-based fertilizers as it would be more scientifically complete and less biased while side stepping the entire organic-industrial debate (and the likes of people like me) altogether.
Thanks. Moose Meat Stew ( talk) 04:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)talonx
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)Talonx
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)
Domain Eukarya isn't required here. It just clutters up the infobox. 78.151.23.110 ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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! D e v r i t 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind i managed to fix it myself thanks anyways D e v r i t 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- Gary Dee 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flatworm. 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) 18:
27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(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
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)
![]() | Flatworm 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone have examples of flatworms that have multiple openings to their guts (as is referred to in the page)? -- Mperkins 03:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This should probably be incorporated into an external link at some point. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/video/tv_high.html?ep_hunt_explo2_mov_hi 06:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In acoelomate flatworms, now thought to be unrelated to the Platyhelminthes... --unsigned comment
New species of flatworm found: Imogine lateotentare. They have an interesting way of reproduction. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/what-lurks-beneath--fleshsucking-sex-fiends/2006/01/20/1137734154394.html Since I'm not into this kinda stuff I'll leave it up to others if this actually needs mentioning and if so, how to go about it. -- Mais
Is it pronounced "platyhelminteez" or "platyhelmintheez"? Twilight Realm 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The latter. Cerealkiller13 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
like all other animals, flatworms do I may be wrong, but I thought adult cestodes (and many other gut-dwelling animals) were effectively anaerobic.
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)
I read on www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html, that flatworms eat other small worms, insects, and microscopic matter.- Erika
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).
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)ShokuMasterLord
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:
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)
These look useful: -- Philcha ( talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Editors, the lead is very big, can this be shortened? see WP:LEAD. Bluptr ( talk) 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a technical template to the page, because the discussion of classification in the lead section is highly confusing, particularly for a broad audience. I would suggest condensing the explanation and leaving the details for the body of the article CameronNemo ( talk) 07:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's how this article's content breaks down in accordance with the GA criteria:
I hope this helps improve the article. Unfortunately, in its present state, it does not meet the GA criteria and can't be listed. Once the issues are addressed, it can be renominated at WP:GAN. Dr. Cash ( talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting a new GA review of this article. I'll work my way through it, but first I'd like to raise some points concerning the lead.
More to come as I work my way through the article. Looie496 ( talk) 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Looie496, thanks for stepping up so quickly. -- Philcha ( talk)
Since I sort of specialize in "popularizing", let me take a shot here:
Feel free to reject, revise, or whatever. Looie496 ( talk) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Next section: basically good, but I would make a couple of changes. First, I think the table needs a sentence to introduce it. Second, I think the table should be simplified a bit. The differences between cnidarians and ctenophores are not really relevant to this article, so I would suggest combining the two categories, and removing the first two lines of the table. As it is, they distract attention and make the table harder to read. Also it might be worth saying "(comb jellies)" when first mentioning ctenophores, since they are a rather obscure group. Looie496 ( talk) 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This table is a train wreck. I would have tried to fix it, but I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a fourth column, if two of the headings should be merged, or if one of them should be removed completely.-- 24.16.130.76 ( talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Having pushed you to shorten the lead, I now find myself having to say that the first paragraph of this section belongs in the lead. I really think it does, though -- it is comprehensive, easy to understand, and extremely informative about the basic biology of these creatures -- for example, it explains why flatworms are flat. I think perhaps this material could simply be tacked onto the first paragraph of the lead, except for the first sentence.
In the paragraph "Most platyhelminths…", the "since" in the 2nd sentence makes it into a just-so story, and oughtn't to be stated that way (although it's hard to see how it could be wrong).
In the 4th paragraph, "level of concentration" is redundant -- concentration is itself a type of level. This phrase is used twice.
In the 5th paragraph, perhaps clarify that the head end is the end where the mouth is located. (It could be taken as the end where the nervous system is concentrated, which would make this circular.) Looie496 ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Turbellaria: The only issue I have with this section is that I think it would be good to restate that the Acoela are now known to have a completely different phylogeny than the others. This message is present in earlier parts of the article but it wouldn't be hard for a reader to have missed it. The other thing is that if you are going to mention both planarians and seriates, you should say somewhere that planarians are seriates.
Trematoda: I suggest defining "holdfast" briefly in the article -- the word is used multiple times and will probably be unfamiliar to most readers.
Digenea: You might consider adding a text paragraph to recap the story from the figure. This snail-to-fish-to-land-animal-to-snail is so amazing that it deserves to be fully spelled out. Also I think it is worth mentioning that schistosomes belong to this group. Looie496 ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
References
WalkerAnderson2001PlatyhelminthesInAnderson
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I think that the lead is very big, can the amount of information in the lead be brought down or made brief? (See WP:LEAD )-- Bluptr ( talk) 09:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
First item: it seems to me that the first paragraph ought to make clear that synapomorphies are critical for "classical classification" but don't come into play in genetically based approaches, which have been taking over.
Second item: near end of 2nd paragraph, "agreed that both are more closely related to cnidarians (jellyfish, etc.) than other bilaterians are". I think this is wrong -- all bilaterians should be equidistant from cnidarians. Otherwise cnidarians would be a sister group of acoelomorpha.
In 2nd-to-last paragraph, might be worth saying that the sister group, Gastrotricha, are "tiny aquatic worms that feed on microalgae, bacteria, and protozoans", or something like that.
Last paragraph: if the traditional turbellarians include the acoelomorpha, they are paraphyletic for more reasons than the sentence states. Looie496 ( talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm passing this article for GA now. Although there are still improvements that could be made, I am satisfied with its current state enough to feel no qualms about passing it. Looie496 ( talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have evidence or citations for the claims in the posted statement:
The threat of platyhelminth parasites to humans in developed countries is rising because of organic farming, the popularity of raw or lighty-cooked foods, and imports of meat, sea food and salad vegetables from high-risk areas."
To me this statement infers negligence towards public health on the part of organic farming that seems out line with my understanding organic farming practice. Given that organic farming predates what we have come to now call conventional farming, one would not only have to accept that the intent of conventional farming was primarily to prevent human disease (instead of other more prevalent reasons like boosting crop yields with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides), but also that returning to organic farming is to willfully depart from this lofty ambition.
Don't get me wrong, that isn't to say that there is some underlaying logic to justify the statement. If conventional farming practice has managed to reduce the risk of platyhelminth parasitesto humans, then returning to organic farming may call a return to the risk - then again, it may not if you consider our more increased understanding of food handling and preparation since the rise of conventional farming. Who's to say? Where is the evidence? The statement needs support to uphold this logic.
Without including the evidence or a citation to support this statement as it is currently worded basically amounts to opinion and without the objective detachment of scientific evidence, or even a disclaimer of supposition, it exposes this scientific article to the politics of heated public debate over organic vs conventional.
Frankly, I (obviously) have strong opinions on the subject of organic farming and I took offense to the statement - a scientific article shouldn't offend me and get me all fired up. Heck, I was trying to learn about worms so I can better understand vermi-composting, not looking for debate. If the statement has scientific backing, please include it.
Thanks. Moose Meat Stew ( talk) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my aim is not to criticize credibility, so much as it is to suggest that the current incarnation of this article does not making it easy for the reader to investigate the source for this particular assertion against organic farming, and thereby determine the context from which the statement was drawn, due to the lack of a direct and specific citation which requires the reader to wade through a list of twenty-five references, five further readings, and six external links for more information. I'd be more than happy to review the source to draw my own conclusions around organic farming and parasitic risks if only someone were able to provide assistance in narrowing down where the idea came from since I have little desire to become a subject matter expert on the complete biology of flatworms.
At the risk of beleaguering the point, when reading the statement through the lens of "pro-organic", the suggestion that organic farming increases threat of parasitic flatworm infection makes as much sense to me as if I were to suggest there were is an increased risk in ankle injury due to walking. I know for a fact that people have been walking for a long time and that this practice in and of itself should not increase injury risk over what it has been at some point during walking history. My statement would be down right inflammatory if referenced as a reason why people should get back in their cars instead of walking. Organic farming was all there was long before the invention of pesticides, we just didn't have any need to call it anything other than farming at that time. The statement suggests to me that if we were to revert to only organic farming that parasitic flatworm infestations would rise unchallenged as there is no mechanism in organic practices to deal with it. That seems narrow-sighted.
Without the details to frame this otherwise anti-organic comment, or at least specific citation to explore for those of us so piqued, there is a risk that this (probably innocent) statement could be misused in contexts outside of the scope of this article. My imagination conjures up someone out there citing this article to support the outlandish claim that organic produce will give you worms. I'm merely suggesting that with the aim of objectivity, either the idea be expanded to include the details, the wording be reconsidered, or the source for that specific assertion be indicated directly at the end of the sentence for the benefit of the reader.
I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion. Moose Meat Stew ( talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the direction (and you patience). I apologize if my understanding of the referencing practice in the lead is a bit novice.
I have (now) read the Northrop-Clewes paper section about "the hidden menace" of organic farming. They are absolutely correct in that spraying feces on your field will make you sick by spreading all sorts of baddies. Unfortunately their broad-stroked swipe at organic farming neglects some key points.
Although they didn't delve into it, Northrop and Clewes actually touch on the problem in the header of the passage itself. "The organic food revolution in industrialized countries -the hidden menace" alludes to the fact that an improper marriage of organic and industrial practice can create problems. Unfortunately, the passage seems to promptly takes a tone against organic farming and carries this position though the article going so far as attacking organic farming as "turning back the pages of history" and it even makes a call to ones senses as an argument. I mean, really, come on. Can the fact that manure stinks be a scientific argument against it? I don't see anyone perfuming their house with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic practices do not all come from the days of lore and can, with some ingenuity and creativity, be adapted to the demands of industrial output. While Northrop and Clews do make a point about manure as a potential carrier, I can hardly consider their passage a definitive account of organic practice.
There is a good book by Michael Pollan called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that covers the implications of industrial food production, organic food production, and the practice of hunting and gathering. It goes a long way to exposing some harsh misconceptions about how we grow, gather, transport, think and feel about our food as well as exploring the impact our efforts have on both the environment and our communities. He exposes some prime examples of where organic meets industrial and shows where it works and where it doesn't. If you have some time and the interest, it is a great read.
May I suggest that the passages regarding organic farming in this article be reworded somehow. Blaming organic farming simply carries over whatever sentiment Northrop and Clewes hold against organic farming. I don't think the idea of manure as a carrier is without merit, but perhaps this article should simply addresses the use of improperly prepared manure-based fertilizers as it would be more scientifically complete and less biased while side stepping the entire organic-industrial debate (and the likes of people like me) altogether.
Thanks. Moose Meat Stew ( talk) 04:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)talonx
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)Talonx
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)
Domain Eukarya isn't required here. It just clutters up the infobox. 78.151.23.110 ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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! D e v r i t 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind i managed to fix it myself thanks anyways D e v r i t 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- Gary Dee 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flatworm. 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) 18:
27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(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
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)