Talk:Sponge/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sponge

THIS DOES NOT HELP SCIENCE PROJECTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.222.233 (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Earliest fossils

Interesting development at Love et al (2009) "Fossil steroids record the appearance of Demospongiae during the Cryogenian period" Nature 457, 718-721 doi:10.1038/nature07673 Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Sabine's Sunbird. I'd hold off using this one for now: the article's long enough already; the report is about rocks only 55MY earlier than the first fossil sponges; an article already cited notes that a wide survey of chanoflagellates would be needed in order to show that none of these also produces the steroid concerned, 24-isopropylcholestane; geochemistry hypotheses often get severly questioned & modified or even refuted in the 5 yrs after publication. --Philcha (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I just got another heads up about this from Dino Mailing List - are you on that too? -Philcha (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I just have good sponge biologist friends! Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of this article. If your good sponge biologist friends could take a look at the article and comment here or pass comments to you I'd be very grateful. --Philcha (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Their speciality is ecology, not palaeontology, so they wouldn't be any more help than I. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

life expectancy?

How long do sponges live? Kingturtle (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a complicated question. Aging of Organisms pp 80ff suggests the totipotent cells (those than transform into any other type) may be potentially immortal, but I know too little of aging mechanisms to wrtie that idea into the article. Estimates of the actual ages of some glass sponges range up to 1500 years, based on measured growth rates and the largest sizes of known specimens - but thrse species live in very cold waters, where all biological processes, including aging, are very slow. For species that produce gemmules ("survival pods"), it's hard to tell whether the sponges are long-lived or their skeletons are re-colonised by gemmules of the same species. --Philcha (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice research! It would be great if a section of this article went into these details. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gemmules are described in "Reproduction", and some even longer estimates based on sizes and growth rates in "Life cycle". --Philcha (talk)

Intro

The introductory section is too long. According to Wikipedia style guidelines it should be no more than 4 paragraphs. So we should shorten it and make it a bit more concise

FireBrandon (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Phyla are big subjects, and WP:LEAD also requires an adequate summary of the content. Various reviewers have been happy to WP:IAR on lead length in articles on phyla, see e.g. GA reviews of Arthropod, Mollusc, Cnidaria, Flatworm - and in articles on other big subjects, e.g. Evolutionary history of life. --Philcha (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of paragraphs isn't that important, since paragraphs can be of any length. The amount of text however is too intimidating to someone coming across the article. I think it needs to be reduced to about 2/3 its current length (which is about the same length as most of the articles linked). Very nice to see how the much article has improved since I last saw it, by the way. Richard001 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the least damaging cuts would be:

• Sponges are known for regenerating from fragments that are broken off, although this only works if the fragments include the right types of cells. A few species reproduce by budding. When conditions deteriorate, for example as temperatures drop, many freshwater species and a few marine ones produce gemmules, "survival pods" of unspecialized cells that remain dormant until conditions improve and then either form completely new sponges or re-colonize the skeletons of their parents. However most sponges use sexual reproduction, releasing sperm cells into the water. In viviparous species the cells that capture most of the adults' food capture the sperm cells but, instead of digesting them, transport them to ova in the parent's mesohyl. The fertilized eggs begin development within the parent and the larvae are released to swim off in search of places to settle. In oviparous species both sperm and egg cells are released into the water and fertilisation and development take place outside the parent's bodies.
• It is generally thought that sponges' closest single-celled relatives are choanoflagellates, which strongly resemble the cells that sponges use to drive their water flow systems and capture most of their food. It is also generally agreed that sponges do not form a monophyletic group, in other words do not include all and only the descendants of a common ancestor, because it is thought that Eumetazoa (more complex animals) are descendants of a sub-group of sponges. However it is uncertain which group of sponges is closest to Eumetazoa, as both calcareous sponges and a sub-group of demosponges called Homoscleromorpha have been nominated by different researchers. In addition a study in 2008 suggested that the earliest animals may have been similar to modern comb jellies. Since comb jellies are considerably more complex than sponges, this would imply that sponges had mobile ancestors and greatly simplified their bodies as they adapted to a sessile filter feeding lifestyle. Chancelloriids, sessile, bag-like organisms whose fossils are found only in rocks from the Cambrian period, increase the uncertainty as it has been suggested that they were sponges but also that their external spines resemble the "chain mail" of the slug-like Halkieriids.

I also looked at the paragraph beginning "Sponges use various materials to reinforce their mesohyl ...", but other parts of the lead depend heavily on this: ecology & distribution depend on construction method; so do the paras on phylogeny and on uses.

You could try develping a new lead on a sub-page and then posting it here for discussion. --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree

This lede is too long. Somebody ought to tag it as "too long" and then take no further action. 66.224.70.106 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This article passed a GA review in Dec 2008 and the reviewer was happy with it. GA reviewers of articles on other invertebrate major taxa has discussed lead length and concluded that in such topics it's best to adopt a flexible attitude - see Arthropod, Chelicerate, Flatworm and Annelid - and the reviewers of Mollusc and Ctenophore didn't even raise the subject. --Philcha (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Earliest chemical evidence

I reverted edit, which changes the date from 1,800 million years ago to about 600 million years ago. That edit was based on Ancient sponges leave their mark (2004), which was inserted after the GA review and IMO is irrelevant. Ancient sponges leave their mark (2004), says "The discovery in Oman pushes back the earliest accepted date for animal life on Earth by tens of millions of years" (to 635 million years ago). However it is overridden by the sources originally used, which are more recent and better:

• Sponges: New Views of Old Animals (2005), says 24-isopropylcholestane has been found in rocks from 1,800 million years ago. I.e. it raises an issue.
• Sterols in a unicellular relative of the metazoans (2008; already cited), says scientists have not eliminated the possibility that some choanoflagellates may also produce 24-isopropylcholestane. In other words the chemical evidence does not prove the presence of sponges. This casts doubt on the report at Ancient sponges leave their mark (2004). I will remove the ref to Ancient sponges leave their mark.

The section as a whole first explains the doubts about chemical evidence of sponges 1,800 million years ago and then concentrates on body fossils. --Philcha (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I assumed the news article link was referring to the published source cited. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comb jellies

Comb jellies in the table link to some insects. This should be corrected.--Dojarca (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, the name Ctenophora has 2 meanings: a marine phylum (= "comb jelly"); and a taxon of insects. We'll need to thse critters "Ctenophora (marine invertebrate)" and "Ctenophora (insect)" and the corresponding "Ctenophore (...)" forms; and then make the unqualified "Ctenophora" and "Ctenophore" disambiguation pages. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Body plan

Some of the individual articles for body plans (Asconoid) are so small that it makes no sense to have them as a standalone article. Merge

I'll start us off with Agree a proskub 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK all the content in Asconoid is explained more thoroughly and will good refs in Sponge. I suggest Asconoid be a direct to the section of Sponge. --Philcha (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaba: A genus in the sponge phylum but of an unknown classification (i.e. family/class etc.)

So I was going through some taxonomy lists ([1]) when I came across "Aaba" which according to this: [2] it is some sort of sponge in this phylum but unknown class/group/family etc. I then did a bit more searching and found this: [3] and then this: [4] so it lead me to this journal (which mind you took me forever to work out what the "anti thesis" of intuitive abbreviations stand for): [5] but as with many things that are the opposite of Wikipedia, I was unable to access it. So I guess if some sponge expert out there might have access to it, to perhaps see if any more info can be found out from that source for this Aaba genus (if anything so it can be directed to its specific family or even class, instead of just doing a standard phylum redirect). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The only page that says more than the name is the last one, dated 1936 ad very scanty. Google Scholar would be the place to find it, but GS finds hits for several "Aaba" / "AABA" that nothing about sponges and no hits about sponges. It appears that Aaba is no longer recognised as the name of a sponge. --Philcha (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-prot

{{editsemiprotected}} In more than 6 weeks, all the IP edits have been vandalism. Please have it edit-semiprotected. -Philcha (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The template {{editsemiprotected}} is used to request that an edit be made to an already semiprotected page. It should not be used to request semiprotection; for that please see WP:RPP. Intelligentsium 16:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, some IPs (such as myself) have to come along and fix it when people cannot spell sponge. 99.60.32.150 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Awong1133, 3 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Porifera live in the water and are sessile. The have no circulatory system, no digestive system, can reproduce sexually and asexually, and have no symmetry. They are a food source for other animals. Examples include sponges, sulfur sponges, branching tube sponges, yellow tube sponges, and commercial sponges. Awong1133 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I think:

• All the items in the first para are needed as these animals are very strange to most readers: the mesohyl sandwiched between two thin layers of cells; the ability of some already-specialised cells to change into change into; no nervous, digestive or circulatory systems; maintaining constant water flow; environments.
• How they feed is essential.
• The 2 paras on reproduction can be combined, with sexual production first but shorter.
• The para on skeletons can be shorter and simpler.
• The last 2 sentences of para "It is generally thought that sponges' closest single-celled relatives are choanoflagellates ..."
• The para on use of sponges is already short, no change needed. --Philcha (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made these changes and removed the {{Lead too long|date=December 2010}} tag. --Philcha (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1007D's changes 20 May 2011

I've undone 1007D's changes:

• The lead already has fossil history further down. --Philcha (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Spongebob Squarepants is already a major cause of vandalism in Sponge, has nothing to the animal sponges, and should not be promoted here. --Philcha (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Why is the lead so short for such a long article? Till I Go Home 14:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Filter feeding is not intracellular digestion

In the section "Respiration, feeding and excretion" it said "They filter food particles out of the water flowing through them, also called intracellular digestion." I don't think anyone calls this filter feeding intracellular digestion. Maybe sponges digest food inside their cells, but even that doesn't make the sentence true. See http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Intracellular_digestion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracellular_digestion . OpenScience (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ecology of sponges

Ecology of sponges is an unnecessary content fork (WP:CFORK), nearly identical to treatment in Sponge#Ecology. No need to set precedent for "Ecology of...." articles for other organisms: most existing "Ecology of" articles involve geographic locations. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Support this merge - the article Sponge could easily absorb this whole entry with very little actual change. Iztwoz (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)  Done

FYI: Spicule is now a disambiguation page

Since "spicule", as a spiky bony or structural protrusion is a term broadly applied to many different structures in unrelated organisms, (e.g. frog skin and poriferan skeletons), I've converted spicule into a disambiguation page. However, many sponge-related links still direct to spicule, (see Pages that link to "Spicule") when they should be directed to Sponge spicule (aka Spicule (sponge). Any experts care to help separate sponge-related redirects from general redirects? This is also a reminder to direct future "spicule" wikilinks to the appropriate article. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

Latest edit seemed fishy. JWNoctis (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

Ortiz Gaytan (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

edit request on 13 November 2015

Ortiz Gaytan (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

Ortiz Gaytan (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)