![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For other discussion on this topic see Talk:Phylum (biology)
What happened to phylum protozoa? I guess it's been a long time since I took a biology class... [unsigned]
I requested this change on October 2, 2005. I feel the biological sense is the dominant meaning for phlyum. No one commented on the proposal, and after two weeks, an administrator moved thepages. A few hours later, another user left a message on the talk page saying he disagreed with the move that had just been done, and now moved them back. I don't wish to move-war over this, and I'd like to see more support for this one way or the other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the biological meaning is primary. Does that mean I support the proposal or oppose? Put the question, please. Quintusdecimus
The top of the article makes no sense. It seems to be some sort of list which perhaps should belong (formatted properly) in the rest of the article. 130.243.207.208 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Pentastomida from this list; most experts consider them to be arthropods. Gdr 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Does Vetulicolia belong on this list somewhere? Bob the Hamster 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The first line of this table was garbled and the headings were missing. I have just fixed that. But now ... why are the "best known animal phyla", Mollusca, Porifera, Arthropoda, Chordata etc, NOT in the table? I assume that *cannot* be a mere oversight, and there must be some rationale for omitting them??? 86.6.13.17 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Frank
I suggest the phyla (divisions) of algae are included: Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta/ Heterokontophyta (I need to do some homework here!) Osborne 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked up "Pteridophyta" on Wikipedia itself but it claims it is an invalid taxon. Can someone delete it or change it to "Pteridophyta(invalid)"?
It seems that the correct name for the taxon containing ferns and horsetails is "Polypodiophyta". At the moment this is missing from the table of plant phyla and it should probably be edited to include this. Alexdel100 ( talk) 03:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Both of them are available on Wikipedia, but not under those names, instead you can get their pages by searching "Myzozoa" and "Cercozoa". Can somebody edit it so it shows the correct/different spelling and have a link?
The change from "Phylum" to "Division" by botanists also changes the handy way of remembering the taxonomic classifications used by students. Instead of Katie Please Come Over For Ginger Snaps I guess the botany students will be saying Katie Don't Come Over For Ginger Snaps. Not as easy to remember. Kdwillis 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Should this entry not aim to show the tree of phyla and the relationship between them - eg the close link between chordates and echinoderms and the grouping of animal phyla into bilateral and radial groups? [unsigned]
Does anyone know how to make clickable the parts of the diagram showing the different levels of taxa (phylum, kingdom, etc.)? I'd like to be able to click on 'species' as a link, and not be taken to a blowup of the whole diagram. Kaimiddleton 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are all bacterial and archaean phyla missing from the lists? These really need to be added. TimVickers 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the above, there is a lot of scope for some discussion of the origin of phyla in this article; the coverage is sparse and was incorrect. The Budd reference is especially essential reading in terms of countering the populist (and IMO incorrect) Gouldian view pushed in Wonderful life. Verisimilus T 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
is there some actual defining term or word for biological taxonomy that is used commonly? I mean, as far as i can tell, there isn't even a wikipedia article dedicated to describing the whole system of classification used by biologists, botanists, etc. If there's some common term, it could be looked up easily in wikipedia. Maybe it's fine as a subtopic in a "taxonomy" article, I dunno. Any thoughts? Ormewood ( talk) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Some images would really liven up this article as well as give laymen some sense of perspective. Shinobu ( talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How come the animals are all worms? Where are the phylums with dogs and sharks[?] I'm desperate here! Jamhaw ( talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)jamhaw
These are actually two very good questions and should be covered in the article more explicitly, the first is more difficult to answer succinctly but it should be possible to put in something basic without getting too tied up in stuff which isn't completely relevant. 78.33.159.227 ( talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
i need to know more about phylum im doing a school project on phylum and im only in sixth grade give me more info but shorter words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.38.19 ( talk) 20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the current version of the first sentence of this article:
In biological taxonomy, a phylum (plural: phyla) is a taxonomic rank at the level below Kingdom and above Class.
The diagram to the right hand side, however, has "phylum" above kingdom and below "class". Can someone please fix this? Kaimiddleton ( talk) 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
We are currently studying for the RHS Level 3 certificate in horticulture and have been taught about the Division Oomycota amongst the fungi. It is not included on this page - is it defunct, has our lecturer made a mistake or indeed are the RHS behind the times (easily true)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.93.209 ( talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"In fact, a phylum is perhaps best described as a statement of taxonomic ignorance." A word is not a statement. Unfree ( talk) 02:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"'Phylum' is equivalent to the botanical term division." This statement seems to imply that "phylum" is not a botanical term, suggesting it is probably a zoological one, and that "division" is the proper term to use in botany in place of "phylum", in which case, why does "division" redirect here? It needs to be more explicit, and if "phylum" is enclosed in quotation marks, so should "division" be. Unfree ( talk) 02:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Good God, how did this even slip by peer review?
"Phylum is one of the major biological divisions called Taxa. Although "phylum" is often used as if it were a clearly defined term, no satisfactory definition of it exists. In fact, "phylum" may be a misnomer indicative of ignorance"
Stating confidently "Phylum is one of the major biological divisions..." then ending it with "phylum may be a misnomer indicative of ignorance" is just flat out going to confuse anyone who isn't familiar with biology. Especially when it's in the opening paragraph of the article.
Is it possible we can put criticism of the term in it's own section? I just can't imagine being able to put "no satisfactory definition" right after giving it's definition (and without any deeper details then unnamed authors can't reach a compromise) without expecting to leave readers wondering if the peer review system was a horrible idea.
We should also remember that while some written work is very thorough and may have no errors, these kinds of books and authors capable of writing them are very rare. It would be wiser instead of using unknown authors if we could find the most commonly accepted definition for Phylum, and use that as a template, then using authors we can name that disagree with the establishment come back and add why they take issue with the common definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.185.146 ( talk) 23:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Ordinary Person ( talk) 11:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Edited the intro: it seemed amateurish. If someone wants to re-establish the material about ignorance in the body of the article, go ahead. Ordinary Person ( talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
"Phylum is one of the major biological divisions called Taxa."
Aside from the unneeded capitalization, this isn't even correct. "Phylum" is not a taxon, it's a taxonomic rank. A taxon is a specific named group of organisms such as "Phylum Chordata." By analogy, "state" is a rank, while "Texas," "Montana,"and "Vermont" are taxa at the hierarchical rank of "state". And we've already identified phylum as a taxonomic rank in the first sentence. I'm just going to delete this sentence. It's just wrong, and at best superfluous. 71.12.232.40 ( talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add to this page's numerous problems: should we include extinct phyla? Totnesmartin ( talk) 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand why, when, where, and/or by who the terms superphylum and subphylum would be used. For example, the Mollusca article uses superphylum and phylum in its infobox while the Insecta article has phylum and subphylum. Neither superphylum nor subphylum are mentioned in the biological classification article at all. The taxonomic rank and phylum articles mention the terms but does not explain why, when, where, and/or by who they are used.
At present superphylum redirects to phylum. Subphylum has it's own article but that gives no information other than the rather obvious "subphylum is a taxonomic rank intermediate between phylum and superclass" and does not explain why/when/where/who subphylum are used. -- Marc Kupper| talk 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What this article lacks, as do many of the articles on taxonomy and biological classification, is a clear presentation of the idea that any biological classification represents the opinion of an individual or group. It is a 'scientific' opinion, in that it can't just be arbitrary, but needs to be supported by argument and verifiable evidence, but in the end different taxonomists can legitimately make different judgements based on the same evidence. Therefore there just are no definitive lists of phyla (or any other taxonomic rank). There are lists of phyla according to X, or Y, or Z. It may be that at any one time there is an overwhelming consensus as to the list of phyla or divisions (although having studied classification on and off since 1966, I can only say that it doesn't seem so to me!). An important consequence is that all lists or definitions of taxonomic ranks MUST be referenced. The lists in the article are not, which renders them inappropriate for Wikipedia: they represent just one unsourced point of view. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
From the intro the kingdom Plantae contains 12 divisions, but the table under plant divisions lists only 11 divisions. Which is correct? Should the intro be edited to read "the kingdom Plantae contains 11 divisions", or is there a division missing from the table? XinaNicole ( talk) 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does the table of plant divisions list 12 divisions but show a total of 14? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.149.3 ( talk) 12:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are these necessary? Every page linked under the tagged sections has its own references. INBN ( talk) 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Echiura should be included as they are generally regarded as a separate phylum. LieutenantLatvia ( talk) 23:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Burmeister ( talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Sminthopsis84, Basidiomycota has not been dropped. There is a table of the 6 phyla in the article which is where I got the number 6 from (the opening should sum up the article) but I now see that section has been tagged for no refs so it is entirely appropriate that this statement is also tagged in the opening. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The idea that our readers are too preciou or just too stupid to undertand what technical terms like extant or embryophyte mean seems a bizarre claim, given that (a) we have wikipedia for simple explanation and (b) we dont dumb down in other articles so why would we do so in this one? If you think our polivies demand we dumb down please show me the policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I made a few changes to the Animal phyla chart. Hemichordata used to list "acorn worms" as the common name for this phyla, and while acorn worms are hemichordates, not all hemichordates are acorn worms. They are only one class within this phylum, so I have removed that name. Similarly, I removed "anemones/jellyfish" for Cnidaria, in favor of the more inclusive (if less specific) cnidarians.
I also noticed that both Acoelomorpha and Xenacoeolomorpha were listed. I'm not a biologist (and I was absent on frog-dissecting day in high school!), but I gather that the former is already included in the latter, so I have removed Acoels...
Phylum | Meaning | Common name | Distinguishing characteristic | Species described |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acoelomorpha | Without gut | Acoels | No mouth or alimentary canal (alimentary canal = digestive tract in digestive system) | approx. 350 |
...and placed them here in case we need to add them back (I get the impression these definitions aren't settled). Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 06:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Protista section was based on an uncredited chart (from a textbook?) included in an instructor's slideshow, so I figured it should be updated. Finding a replacement was tough, though! Kingdom Protista seems to be less and less formally accepted these days, and every person who does use it seems to have their own unique set of phyla. I didn't want to construct some kind of compromise system, since that could be original research, but I had trouble figuring out if one system was more widely accepted than the others. The International Society of Protistologists has adopted their own taxonomy, which sounds nice and official, but since they deliberately avoid rank names, there are technically no phyla in their scheme. Fortunately, I didn't have to guess since the Catalogue of Life had blended the ISP system with Linnaean taxonomy. Using their list means that some phyla don't appear in any chart on the page as it stands (Rhodophyta, Glaucophyta, Chlorophyta & Charophyta at least) but I don't know whether these should be added to the Plant table, the Protist table, or left in the body of the text (which seems unfair). Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 13:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, in the interest of table completeness, I went ahead and refocused the Plant section on all Archaeplastida, rather than just Embryophyta with a brief nod to green algae. I guess the other possibility (other than leaving them out of the tables altogether, which seems wrong) would be to stick the algae under Protista, but that would defy the source used for the protist phyla. Of course, using the Cavalier-Smith definition of Plantae but not the exact set of phyla he proposes could also be seen as a novel synthesis. How to best balance traditional pedagogy with recent research? O, handwringing! Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 09:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There is an unexplained asterisk after Porifera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.192.11 ( talk) 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
big thanks to whoever added the extinct animal phylums, i was wondering why they weren't there to begin with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewing The Wyvern ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The International Society of Protistologists is cited in this article as the organization behind the Ruggiero et al. (2015) classification, but this is not true at all. The ISP is behind the Adl et al. (2005,2012,2019) classifications, which are very different. This needs to be fixed. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 07:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)