Talk:Animal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 6 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Animal 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 11, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
April 2, 2023	Peer review	Reviewed

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 15, 2007.

Current status: Good article

Animals Top‑importance

Animal is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Biology Top‑importance

	Biology portal Animal is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Necessity of dedicated Ecdysozoa and Spiralia sections

Of course this is getting into some rather deep water (what with how much is written on them in the article and how much work from so many people I'm talking about) but is the presence of detailed subsections for Ecdysozoa and Spiralia truly necessary when deuterostome phyla are adequately covered with a brief overview in the relevant paragraph and plentiful links to their articles proper? It is nice to shine a light on protostomes, but it does lead to quite asymmetric emphasis in this section and invites even more disputed taxonomy in, which the article already has in abundance I think we can all agree. I reckon it might be worthwhile to tighten up the article by removing Ecdysozoa and Spiralia as sections, moving the noteworthy examples up to bring it in congruence with the description for deuterostomes. The previous diagram contrasting radial and spiral cleavage would make up for the lack of the spiral cleavage specific one, and the controversy in spiralia can be left to its own dedicated article this way. If nothing else, the sections should be cleaned up (are we sure "The Spiralia's phylogeny" is grammatical?) if they are to be kept. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sections are also the first time those clades are mentioned throughout the entire article, setting them aside would bring the Bilateria section into general congruence with the second paragraph of the article: "the vast majority of bilaterians belong to two large superphyla: the protostomes, which includes organisms such as arthropods, molluscs, flatworms, annelids and nematodes; and the deuterostomes, which include echinoderms, hemichordates and chordates, the latter of which contains the vertebrates." Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to yourself ... Ok, I must say I broadly agree, having already slimmed down the phylogeny so that (ahem) it doesn't mention Ecdysozoa and Spiralia any more (it once tried to cover every phylum, that way madness lies). I'll have a go at slimming down the material as you indicate. The grammar is fine in BE by the way. I think we should get the phylogeny to cover the protostomes and deuterostomes so we have an accurate match with the section headings, to complete your logic. Obviously that must be cited; as I'm allergic to composite (ORish) trees, we need a phylogeny source that goes that far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The phylogeny section is definitely in a better state than it was, but the years of revisions seemed to have left some loose ends, at least considering article cohesion. With regard to steering clear of composite tree bloat, it would be great if we could find a grand review study covering covering current research on all this. It gets confusing when the article presents something as consensus, despite being explicitly "proposed" phyla, it ends up smelling of OR/synth even if none is intended. Is there a general process for how to present cladograms with disputed relationships? Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it, more or less. There are no 'proposed' phyla on any tree in the article, and there is certainly no OR as each tree is based directly on a single cited source. This article also certainly isn't the place to show disputes (with dashed lines, whatever) within the Bilateria, if that's your goal, it simply isn't this article's function to go into that sort of detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have been clear in what I was referring to, Nephrozoa as included in the Bilateria tree here is said to be "proposed" in its own article, which also emphasizes its controversial nature, though this one calls it consensus. Citation in Nephrozoa despite being a stub is from 2019, in this article the claim of consensus is cited with a 2014 source. This discrepancy is what is confusing to see. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 15:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Nephrozoa are quite well supported, and the alternative is the weakly-supported hypothesis that the Deuterostomia is paraphyletic. Swalla 2024 says the deuterostomes are a clade, so I think we can stay with what we have here really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2025

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Animal. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hello everyone the Catalogue of Life states that there are 1,568,597 animal species. Since the number in the article is outdated, I would have liked to have updated it. Best regards and thank you very much, Matz2703

″Total number of described extant species as of 2024: 1,563,470 (According to the Catalogue of Life)″ → ″Total number of described extant species as of 2025: 1,568,597 (According to the Catalogue of Life)″ Matz2703 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]