This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Onychophora article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Onychophora received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article contains a translation of Stummelfüßer from de.wikipedia. |
There is an excellent (and acknowledged as such) article on these creatures at the German wikipedia. I've started a translation but it may take a while because the article is enormous and contains a lot of technical detail. Yummifruitbat 00:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
What are the other non-mammal animals to have placentas? This is amazing! -- Toytoy 14:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Have a class and order been named for the phylum's taxonomy? If not, why not? Aren't order and class standard ranks that are always added? The phylum Placozoa has only one family with one species, but they still made an order and class for it. So where are these for Onychophora? Jerkov 17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, I've been working intermittently on a translation of the Featured Article on this subject from the German Wikipedia. I've got a bit more done of late and my progress so far can be seen in my sandbox. I'm going to hold off merging it until it's completed, but any wikifying etc. that people might feel like doing while it's still in the sandbox would be very welcome. Once again, sorry for the long drag - I'll get there eventually, honest! -- YFB ¿ 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the picture, but how about a labeled line drawing of the beastie? I'm having trouble envisioning its segmented head. The Sanity Inspector 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've finally finished the translation from the German "exzellentes Artikel" that I've been tackling on-and-off since May last year. I've tried to make it as literal a translation as possible but have made adjustments where necessary to make the English more natural. There are probably quite a few errors so corrections are welcome! Cheers, -- YFB ¿ 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from Stephen Jay Gould's essay The Reversal of Hallucigenia:
About eighty species of living onychophorans have been described...
...They are elongated, soft bodied, and unsegmented (the ringlike "annulations" on antennae, legs, and sometimes on the trunk are superficial and do not indicate the presence of segments, or true divisions of the body).
-- Roivas ( talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Would this overview article on the phylum be improved by two or three brief examples of named species? I'm thinking of largest, smallest, most widely-distributed, and the most frequently-encountered as exotic pets: there's no need for more than a sentence each, with a link to a stub article (or a real one if they exist) for the named species.
Nile ( talk) 22:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note I need to elaborate on when I get the chance to source it - http://www.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/rbt/attachments/onicof/onynew99/onyevolu.htm
http://download.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext?ID=119239364&PLACEBO=IE.pdf&mode=pdf
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on sensory organs mentions the eyes which is not coming from the German article most of the rest is coming from. It says:
This seems both NPOV and flawed to me, for the following reasons:
1) "this would imply" is a counterfactual, i.e. it would but it doesn't. However, the link is to an abstract of a scientific paper that actually makes that claim, and since Wikipedia must remain NPOV, either this is a valid scientific claim (in which case it should be refrased to something like "scientists have claimed that ..."), or it isn't, in which case I'd like to see more than one dismissals of it. Which brings me to
2) the "however" part which dismisses the idea brought forth in 1) is referenced only by an ISDN number, one that I haven't been able to trace, with no description or title or whatever. This doesn't seem to me a very valid rebuttal. And even if it is, has it more value than the other source? Also
3) "the homology is limited: (...) behind the antenna, whereas the opposite (...) in arthropods". However, this claim is only valid when the antenna of the velvet worms and arthropods are homologous, which this article claims it isn't. I quote:
If this is true, the homology of the eyes is still very much possible, as the labrum in arhtropods are below the eyes.
Perhaps someone can shed a light on what is true and what is not, as I am unfortunately no expert on matters.
One more remark: the text mentions the eyes are "just underneath the head". I think what's meant is that they are just below the skin of the head. I'm not entirely sure, the original German text doesn't seem to mention it.
Jalwikip ( talk) 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that everybody is now looking at the pre-Cambrian animal hallucegenia as a form of onychophora. I'm no expert, so what do people think of this development! 124.170.123.65 ( talk) 06:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
What texture is the body (ie slimy, soft, hard, etc)? It mentions that they have slime glands, but not very much else on this topic. UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 22:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I have to write here to show a very common mistake:
"The segmented worm-like organisms"
They are not worm-like at all, anything but a worm.
Calling it a worm is like calling a caterpillar a worm - so unless any proof can be shown that it is indeed, a worm - it will be deleted.
They have cuticle, something a worm does not have.
They have 'legs', something a worm does not have.
Others example follows.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.112.133.48 (
talk) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A velvet 'worm' is much more similar (anatomically and physiologically) to a caterpillar then to a worm. I would whole-heartedly agree to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.133.48 ( talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I find the article to be incoherent in places and with some curious claims. I am not an expert on the Onychophora and the article is long, so I am not willing to undertake to edit it in case other commitments hit the fan or my memory simply lets me and everyone else down. Besides, I have very little literature on onychophora at my disposal. Life is so sad. However, I shall try to remember to do what I can as soon and as well as I can. And as coherently. Meanwhile, I hope that this inspires any well-informed and sympathetic parties to see what they can do in the mean time. JonRichfield ( talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article. 86.179.191.90 ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a word may have been omitted. Jrm2007 ( talk) 01:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Onychophora/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
== recapitulation is wrong ==
"The similarity of these creatures to caterpillars is not purely coincidental; as with most creatures, the larval stage of moths and butterflies are thought to represent, however inconsistently, previous evolutionary stages." The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was debunked about a century ago - see Recapitulation_theory. For example, human foetuses don't develop gill slits because fish had gills, they do so because fish foetuses also developed gill slits. Nature is often conservative, not changing this pattern of development as no need to. There is no doubt that velvet worms are related to arthropods in some way, but I don't know of any evidence that they are specifically related to caterpillars. You could make a comparison with adult centipedes by way of analogy, but this doesn't necessarily imply a direct evolutionary relationship. When comparing animals for common features it is easy to see similarities that result from convergent evolution. For example, koala bears have opposable thumbs like us. But there is no close relationship - they are marsupials. The similarity is because they are adapted for tree climbing as are we. -- J987 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Onychophora. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The sections " [s]kin and muscle" (first paragraph), " [c]irculation", " [f]eeding" (both paragraphs), and " [r]eproduction and life cycle" (first paragraph) all have paragraphs that I think need splitting. Could someone please tell me where I should split them?-- Thylacine24 ( talk) 02:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Onychophora article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Onychophora received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article contains a translation of Stummelfüßer from de.wikipedia. |
There is an excellent (and acknowledged as such) article on these creatures at the German wikipedia. I've started a translation but it may take a while because the article is enormous and contains a lot of technical detail. Yummifruitbat 00:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
What are the other non-mammal animals to have placentas? This is amazing! -- Toytoy 14:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Have a class and order been named for the phylum's taxonomy? If not, why not? Aren't order and class standard ranks that are always added? The phylum Placozoa has only one family with one species, but they still made an order and class for it. So where are these for Onychophora? Jerkov 17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, I've been working intermittently on a translation of the Featured Article on this subject from the German Wikipedia. I've got a bit more done of late and my progress so far can be seen in my sandbox. I'm going to hold off merging it until it's completed, but any wikifying etc. that people might feel like doing while it's still in the sandbox would be very welcome. Once again, sorry for the long drag - I'll get there eventually, honest! -- YFB ¿ 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the picture, but how about a labeled line drawing of the beastie? I'm having trouble envisioning its segmented head. The Sanity Inspector 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've finally finished the translation from the German "exzellentes Artikel" that I've been tackling on-and-off since May last year. I've tried to make it as literal a translation as possible but have made adjustments where necessary to make the English more natural. There are probably quite a few errors so corrections are welcome! Cheers, -- YFB ¿ 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from Stephen Jay Gould's essay The Reversal of Hallucigenia:
About eighty species of living onychophorans have been described...
...They are elongated, soft bodied, and unsegmented (the ringlike "annulations" on antennae, legs, and sometimes on the trunk are superficial and do not indicate the presence of segments, or true divisions of the body).
-- Roivas ( talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Would this overview article on the phylum be improved by two or three brief examples of named species? I'm thinking of largest, smallest, most widely-distributed, and the most frequently-encountered as exotic pets: there's no need for more than a sentence each, with a link to a stub article (or a real one if they exist) for the named species.
Nile ( talk) 22:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note I need to elaborate on when I get the chance to source it - http://www.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/rbt/attachments/onicof/onynew99/onyevolu.htm
http://download.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext?ID=119239364&PLACEBO=IE.pdf&mode=pdf
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on sensory organs mentions the eyes which is not coming from the German article most of the rest is coming from. It says:
This seems both NPOV and flawed to me, for the following reasons:
1) "this would imply" is a counterfactual, i.e. it would but it doesn't. However, the link is to an abstract of a scientific paper that actually makes that claim, and since Wikipedia must remain NPOV, either this is a valid scientific claim (in which case it should be refrased to something like "scientists have claimed that ..."), or it isn't, in which case I'd like to see more than one dismissals of it. Which brings me to
2) the "however" part which dismisses the idea brought forth in 1) is referenced only by an ISDN number, one that I haven't been able to trace, with no description or title or whatever. This doesn't seem to me a very valid rebuttal. And even if it is, has it more value than the other source? Also
3) "the homology is limited: (...) behind the antenna, whereas the opposite (...) in arthropods". However, this claim is only valid when the antenna of the velvet worms and arthropods are homologous, which this article claims it isn't. I quote:
If this is true, the homology of the eyes is still very much possible, as the labrum in arhtropods are below the eyes.
Perhaps someone can shed a light on what is true and what is not, as I am unfortunately no expert on matters.
One more remark: the text mentions the eyes are "just underneath the head". I think what's meant is that they are just below the skin of the head. I'm not entirely sure, the original German text doesn't seem to mention it.
Jalwikip ( talk) 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that everybody is now looking at the pre-Cambrian animal hallucegenia as a form of onychophora. I'm no expert, so what do people think of this development! 124.170.123.65 ( talk) 06:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
What texture is the body (ie slimy, soft, hard, etc)? It mentions that they have slime glands, but not very much else on this topic. UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 22:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I have to write here to show a very common mistake:
"The segmented worm-like organisms"
They are not worm-like at all, anything but a worm.
Calling it a worm is like calling a caterpillar a worm - so unless any proof can be shown that it is indeed, a worm - it will be deleted.
They have cuticle, something a worm does not have.
They have 'legs', something a worm does not have.
Others example follows.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.112.133.48 (
talk) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A velvet 'worm' is much more similar (anatomically and physiologically) to a caterpillar then to a worm. I would whole-heartedly agree to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.133.48 ( talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I find the article to be incoherent in places and with some curious claims. I am not an expert on the Onychophora and the article is long, so I am not willing to undertake to edit it in case other commitments hit the fan or my memory simply lets me and everyone else down. Besides, I have very little literature on onychophora at my disposal. Life is so sad. However, I shall try to remember to do what I can as soon and as well as I can. And as coherently. Meanwhile, I hope that this inspires any well-informed and sympathetic parties to see what they can do in the mean time. JonRichfield ( talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article. 86.179.191.90 ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a word may have been omitted. Jrm2007 ( talk) 01:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Onychophora/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
== recapitulation is wrong ==
"The similarity of these creatures to caterpillars is not purely coincidental; as with most creatures, the larval stage of moths and butterflies are thought to represent, however inconsistently, previous evolutionary stages." The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was debunked about a century ago - see Recapitulation_theory. For example, human foetuses don't develop gill slits because fish had gills, they do so because fish foetuses also developed gill slits. Nature is often conservative, not changing this pattern of development as no need to. There is no doubt that velvet worms are related to arthropods in some way, but I don't know of any evidence that they are specifically related to caterpillars. You could make a comparison with adult centipedes by way of analogy, but this doesn't necessarily imply a direct evolutionary relationship. When comparing animals for common features it is easy to see similarities that result from convergent evolution. For example, koala bears have opposable thumbs like us. But there is no close relationship - they are marsupials. The similarity is because they are adapted for tree climbing as are we. -- J987 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Onychophora. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The sections " [s]kin and muscle" (first paragraph), " [c]irculation", " [f]eeding" (both paragraphs), and " [r]eproduction and life cycle" (first paragraph) all have paragraphs that I think need splitting. Could someone please tell me where I should split them?-- Thylacine24 ( talk) 02:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)