Talk:Animal: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:49, 26 April 2004

Latest revision as of 12:05, 20 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

''Very little of what's on that page [i.e., [[:Animalia|Animalia]]] is taxonomy - it's mostly an overview of the group, a discussion of what distinguishes them, and some notes about their origin. I know it's a little technical but that's mainly because I wrote it in excitement over finding out what unites sponges and metazoa; I'm not sure what the purpose of dividing pages like this would be.''

{{British English}}

{{Article history

| action1 = GAN

| action1date = 22:14, 11 March 2018

| action1link = Talk:Animal/GA1

| action1result = listed

| action1oldid = 829966102

|action2=PR

"Animal" is quite obviously a natural topic for biology! You might want to say ''something'' on the page called "animal," in less technical terms, and otherwise point to the [[:Animalia|Animalia]] page. Similarly, Wikipedia is not going to go through life never having a [[:plant|plant]] page ''(Yes, it now has one)''. There is no good reason to use the Latin words ''exclusively,'' is there? If only to avoid redundancy, well, of course you can avoid redundancy by monitoring what is put on the [[:animal|animal]] page and what is on the [[:animalia|animalia]] page. ''Maybe,'' you'll simply want the [[:animal|animal]] page point to [[:animalia|animalia]]. --[[User:LMS|LMS]]

|action2date=2 April 2023

|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Animal/archive1

|action2result=reviewed

|action2oldid=1147819603

| currentstatus = GA

I think the last is probably the best. Or maybe [[:animalia|animalia]] should point to [[:animal|animal]], I'm having a tought time figuring that out. See [[talk:Linnaean taxonomy]]...also note that a flat list of animals like this is going to die hard if more people ever take an interest in them.

| aciddate = 15 December 2007

----

| topic = Natural Sciences

I suggest that the biologists develop biology articles in whatever format they find most simpatico, and after that we can construct a page in ordinary English that points to the Latin pages. (You might want to state your intentions on [[:Animal|Animal]] in order to make this unconfusing to the casual reader.) --[[User:LMS|LMS]]

}}

----

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=

I don't think animal is ever meant in the sense of mammal. Certainly when people give examples of animals, they choose them from that order, but that is no different than ''aleph'' not coming to mind when you give an example of a letter. Certainly whenever non-mammals are at all considered the word animal is assumed to include them - for instance, ''fish and animals'' is a construction which is just plain wrong.

{{WikiProject Animals|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Tree of Life|importance=Top}}

}}

{{annual readership}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

This same sort of trouble seems to me to come up on [[:Fish|Fish]], too - the word is often used for things like jellyfish and shellfish, but if it ever came down to the question "are these fish?" the answer would be a definite no.

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 4

|minthreadsleft = 1

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:Animal/Archive %(counter)d

}}

<!-- Please do not put joke edits here. They will quickly be deleted, and you may be blocked. If you want to try out editing, use your sandbox. -->

:Whilst I'd disagree with the exact wording of the entry, I'd also disagree with your statement. Most people would consider it, in the common sense of the word, to include fish, birds and reptiles, they'd probably not include insects quite so readily. [[User:Dave McKee|Dave McKee]]

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2025 ==

Why in the world is there separate articles for [[animal]] and [[animalia]]? Following [[wikipedia naming conventions]] there should be just one article named [[animal]] with the Latin term redirecting there. Any difference in useage would be an interesting thing to discuss in the article itself. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]

{{edit semi-protected|Animal|answered=yes}}

Naming conventions aren't set in stone, mav. ;-) From the above discussion, [[animal]] is intended for general information, while [[animalia]] is reserved for more technical information. --[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]

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)″

Well there isn't much here anyway and both of the articles are about the same thing, so I am going to perform a merge of content. No need to have duplication of effort. This type of needless duplication has already been discussed elsewhere. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]

→

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

:{{done}}. Thanks for the heads up! [[User:Cyclopia|<span style="font-size:small;color:seagreen">cyclopia</span>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<span style="color:red">^speak!</span>]] 18:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any duplication of effort, and the articles aren't about the same thing. The [[animalia]] page is dense, full of technical information that the average person isn't looking for when they look up [[animal]]. [[Animalia]] is about scientific classification; [[animal]] is for general information. --[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]

::I'm not at all sure this is the right approach: the total will not match the detailed breakdown in the many cells of the table, and as the text outside the table explains, estimates are made on many different bases and are wildly incompatible. It may be best just to remove the "total" row; there are better-explained totals in the text already. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 20:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:As I have stated in other places, I'm not a fan of splitting content along lines of common vs. scientific usage -- even though I am a biologist. A good encyclopedia article on animals would not be so technical as to not be accessible to non-scientists. Using the Latin name only encourages technically-inclined people to write for, what much of the public at large (esp. in the US) views as the "scientific priesthood" by using technical jargon (no wonder much of the general public feels this way -- also no wonder why the vast majority of them are scientifically illiterate). The difference in usage alone would make for an interesting paragraph (see [[Jellyfish]] discussion about the the Portuguese man-of-war). However, in most contexts the two terms are near perfect synonyms. If [[animalia]] is too technical, then it needs to be copyedited for that (maybe moving more technical discussions to sub-articles). --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]

:::It is true that the breakdown is different, but that is because it is based on many different (and often outdated) sources, and ''that'' is the problem. CoL seems to be a reasonable updated source for the total tally. It makes better sense then probably to source all the table to CoL. [[User:Cyclopia|<span style="font-size:small;color:seagreen">cyclopia</span>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<span style="color:red">^speak!</span>]] 22:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think so. If you read the text of the section, you'll see that it discusses multiple bases for estimates. The figures in the table are properly cited; CoL won't give us that sort of range of detailed data on parasitism and habitats. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 22:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, this is a good point. However I would still prefer to have consistency where possible - and where not possible, well, we can't have it. [[User:Cyclopia|<span style="font-size:small;color:seagreen">cyclopia</span>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<span style="color:red">^speak!</span>]] 15:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] Isn't CoL a database? If so, it's not a peer-reviewed source necessarily. We need verifiable species tolls. Databases tend to include synonyms and outdated taxa. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 00:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, it seems to be a database maintained by actual taxonomists - see [https://www.catalogueoflife.org/about/contributors here]. Peer reviewed papers tend to contain errors as well, I don't see why an academic database maintained and used by scientists should be less reliable than papers by the same scientists. Actually papers [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13127-021-00516-w call it] «the most significant international partnership working to deliver a list of all species by engaging a broad network of taxonomists and databases to contribute expert-curated lists for different taxonomic groups.» While no count of species can be perfect, it seems to me more reliable and consistent than a bunch of scattered and outdated papers. [[User:Cyclopia|<span style="font-size:small;color:seagreen">cyclopia</span>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<span style="color:red">^speak!</span>]] 15:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not a good move.

::::::a) it only covers group numbers, not any of the habitat or parasitism/freeliving data, so it's at best a partial approach.

::::::b) using it would therefore INCREASE the fragmentation of sources, not decrease it as you seem to imply.

::::::c) the existing numbers are directly cited to reliable sources, whereas the database is cited to nobody knows what. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 15:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::: CoL is a mixed bag but it does state its source databases, many of which are curated by active experts and up-to-date, but there are still taxa where they rely on old ITIS data or don't state a source. Strangely Vertebrates are not covered by up-to-date sources. The CoL species numbers will be an underestimate as many large taxa have 0 species. For instance, the beetle superfamily Cleroidea has zero species in CoL, whereas a 2015 research paper ([https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280775510_Phylogeny_and_classification_of_Cucujoidea_and_the_recognition_of_a_new_superfamily_Coccinelloidea_Coleoptera_Cucujiformia Robertson et al 2015]) says it has >10,200 species. The same paper has >19,000 species in Cucujoidea and >34 000 species in Tenebrionoidea, while there are only 229 and 875 species, respectively, in the CoL database. That's only 1100 species out of an estimated 63,000, more than 60,000 missing beetle species. I think the reason for this is they are trying to clean up and improve their sources databases. However, within Tenebrionoidea the 875 species are all in tribe Sepidiini (sourced to World catalogue of the tribe Sepidiini). I'd trust those numbers as the best available. It's the aggregate numbers that should be used with caution. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> [[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]] &#124;[[User talk:Jts1882| talk]]&nbsp;</span> 16:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for your informed comment! If so, then I agree to avoid using the database for now. [[User:Cyclopia|<span style="font-size:small;color:seagreen">cyclopia</span>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<span style="color:red">^speak!</span>]] 17:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::: That's not the conclusion I wanted people to draw. CoL is a valuable resources. Use CoL for taxa where it is using good updated databases. It often uses the best sources available, although then you can use them directly. You can check the sources and when they were updated and who curates them. Links are provided, although there are a few cases where CoL is the only public face of the database. The CoL aggregate numbers are more questionable as they are based on a variety of different quality sources, but it's probably fair to say they are minimum estimates.

::::::: I agree with the removal of the totals row. You can't meaninglyfully add up numbers that have have different bases. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> [[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]] &#124;[[User talk:Jts1882| talk]]&nbsp;</span> 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, sorry :) that's what I meant - I was thanking you on informing me on its limitations and therefore I'd personally refrain to use that as a source without first asking. [[User:Cyclopia|<span style="font-size:small;color:seagreen">cyclopia</span>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<span style="color:red">^speak!</span>]] 10:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

== Tonian-present ==

Well, I'm not convinced about the merger, but you seem to feel more strongly about than I, and you're a biologist, so I'm not going to undo it or anything. However, I do encourage you to keep working on the article and spin the more detailed stuff into sub-headings and/or sub-articles. --Stephen Gilbert

Replace “Cryogenian” to “Tonian”, please! (See [[Sponge]] for more, see talk at tonian section.) [[Special:Contributions/2001:1308:268B:D300:1C3C:D255:999B:B593|2001:1308:268B:D300:1C3C:D255:999B:B593]] ([[User talk:2001:1308:268B:D300:1C3C:D255:999B:B593|talk]]) 18:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

: I will do my best as time permits. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]

----

I'd like to toss a few non-mammals onto the list of animals-by-common-names at the end of the article. Nothing too obscure: maybe [[bee]], [[shark]], [[parrot]] or the like. [[user:Vicki Rosenzweig|Vicki Rosenzweig]]

:By all means, please do! --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]

::Done

:We certainly should not do this here, at least until such an approach is agreed over there, which it isn't at the moment. The timeline is for consensus dates supported by good evidence, not by "possible" fossils. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 18:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

----

Moved from article:

"There is also an article titled [[Graeme Base's Animalia]].''" (I've moved this because, if there is, the link is broken) [[user:Vicki Rosenzweig|Vicki Rosenzweig]], Monday, July 15, 2002

== Structural elements ==

----

Not all phyla of animals exhibit all cell junctions or any real tissues, including the muscle and nerve tissues mentioned. [[User:Cathymichaud1313|Cathymichaud1313]] ([[User talk:Cathymichaud1313|talk]]) 03:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

A list of animals is nice, but this one, saying the animals are "well-known" adds nothing to the article. I had never even heard of an [[angula]], and I wouldn't rank buffalo, elk, lynx and salamander in there as well.

:Removed. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 06:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

What would be useful would be some examples of well-known animals from each of the subkingdoms or ven the phyla. We could also have a [[List of animals]] article, if that's necessary. [[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]

==Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age==

----

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Arizona/Linguistics_in_the_Digital_Age_(Spring_2025) | assignments = [[User:Lchalfie|Lchalfie]] | start_date = 2025-01-15 | end_date = 2025-05-07 }}

<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Lchalfie|Lchalfie]] ([[User talk:Lchalfie|talk]]) 19:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)</span>

The chart on the right side of the page needs content and HTML-coding work. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]]

== Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria and Bilateria are Ranked as Infrakingoms/Superphyla? ==

-----

The text says "The animal kingdom is divided into five [[Infrakingdom|infrakingdoms]]/[[superphyla]], namely [[Porifera]], [[Ctenophora]], [[Placozoa]], [[Cnidaria]] and [[Bilateria]].". What? Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa and Cnidaria are definitely phyla. There is also no source cited for this claim. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 17:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know enough about phylogeny and what makes animals animals to really argue hard for the addition I suggested and tweaked in response to criticism:

:This comment might benefit from getting a few more people to see it, I suggest posting it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life here] to get a broader spectrum of responses. There have been similar discussions there recently on very high taxonomic ranks, and related controversies. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] ([[User talk:Dyanega|talk]]) 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

"An early adaptation and distinguishing feature of animals, with the exception of sponges and Placozoa, is the nervous system."

::I think as Chiswick Chap said, we should just delete it as there is no source cited and this is straight up nonsense. I fixed it. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 17:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just delete it. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 17:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did that in the past, but you guys reverted it. That's why I posted it here. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 17:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, you reverted it: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal&diff=prev&oldid=1279621793 [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 17:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Anyways, I fixed it now. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 17:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Apparently, this guy named [[User:Smartiejl|Smartiejl]] added it with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal&diff=prev&oldid=1257768358 [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 18:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Also with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal&diff=prev&oldid=1189644057 this edit] he added that Bilateria was an infrakingdom and Protostomia, Deuterostomia were superphyla WITHOUT CITING ANY SOURCES. We should warn him because of these edits. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Jako96|Jako96]] Yeah I agree that's pretty stupid. Either we stick to a single claim or we just call them clades. I know that Cavalier-Smith (1998) used subkingdoms for Radiata (obsolete), Myxozoa (inside Cnidaria now) and Bilateria, and then in Ruggiero et al. (2015) he simply gave up with animal subkingdoms except for Bilateria (the rest are under "Subkingdom n.n."). Textbooks such as ''Invertebrate Zoology: A Tree of Life Approach'' use the infomal "higher taxon" or just don't use ranks at all. So yeah, just clades is probably better. Hopefully other editors chime in and give their take, though. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 19:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, but actually the thing I said isn't about ranks. It's about that this guy named [[User:Smartiejl|Smartiejl]] didn't provide any sources for his nonsense edits. But I think we should probably use ranks as we did with subkingdom Eumetazoa. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I gave [[User:Smartiejl|Smartiejl]] [[User talk:Smartiejl#4th Unsourced Edit Warning|a warning]]. It looks like this is his 10th warning for vandalism and 4th warning for adding unsourced material. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 19:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately Eumetazoa is no longer a very supported clade because of the ''Ctenophora first'' hypothesis, which means that the ranking is unstable. Also, I haven't seen any citations for further ranking. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 19:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The article's text and cladograms already make that clear. The problem is trying to make an excessively neat summary in an infobox, when real life usually isn't neat at all. That applies to all infoboxes, not just taxoboxen. If we can't ditch the AI-clone approach ("here's a quick summary in a little box") as today's ''zeitgeist'', at least we can prioritise the main text, and we've done that here. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 11:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think anyone was putting the taxobox info into question, it's perfect for this article. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 12:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well the text handles eumetazoa appropriately. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 12:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@[[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] But that's not what we're discussing, we're discussing what ranks should be used in animal taxonomy templates (i.e., {{tl|Taxonomy/Bilateria}} and so on), not in the Animal taxobox subdivisions. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 13:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Then you shouldn't be discussing it here, this talk page is *only* for [[Animal]], the article itself. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 13:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::For better or worse, the article itself mentions those ranks. {{tq|The text says "The animal kingdom is divided into five infrakingdoms/superphyla, namely Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria and Bilateria."}} The issue was noticed here, one of the most important pages of [[WP:TOL]]. It's reasonable to discuss it. If the discussion started becoming too long, I'd move it to [[WT:ANIMALS]] or [[WT:TOL]] (an action already suggested to the discussion's original poster), but so far it's been: 1 thread discussing the edit history of this article, and 1 thread (this one) discussing a miscommunication about the topic of discussion (neither taxobox subdivisons nor the eumetazoan mention in text were questioned, it's the mention of the ''ranks'' of eumetazoans and other deep animal groups, and subsequently their usage in the automatic taxobox system, but it concerns this page first and foremost). I agree with your general sentiment about the correct usage of talk pages, but I think you're misinterpreting this particular talk as irrelevant to the article when it isn't. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 14:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Discussing them within the scope of the article is fine, that's the scope of the talk page. Discussing general principles for templates and other articles is not. That's the difference. Policy is quite clear on this point, and you are wasting a lot of other editors' time arguing the toss about the rules. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 15:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm just responding to your comments by clarifying things. It was never my intention to argue endlessly about rules, or to waste anyone's time. — <span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#8a4ff0">[[User:Snoteleks|'''''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">Snoteleks</span>''''']] <small>([[User talk:Snoteleks|''<span style="color:#8a4ff0">talk</span>'']])</small></span> 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@[[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] I don't understand what are you trying to do. If the discussion would be long enough to be moved, as Snoteleks said, he would move it. Please stop trying to start a fight. Maybe if you would not have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal&diff=prev&oldid=1279621793 reverted my edit] that I fixed this unsourced addition, Snoteleks wouldn't even have the chance to start a discussion about animal taxonomy templates here. [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 18:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It's not about length, it's about irrelevance.

::::::::::::Blaming doesn't change anything, either. [[User:Mlvluu|Mlvluu]] ([[User talk:Mlvluu|talk]]) 19:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2025 ==

It just seems to me a small token to the common sense of "animal," which would be very satisfying to the reader who comes to this article with only that common sense of it, and which to naive me has merit even just as an assertion about phylogeny/evolution, which not to mention is accurate. The remark about muscle and nerve below as incidental to cell differentiation to me calls little attention to these things and to me doesn't make my sentence redundant (although I didn't notice it at first). [[User:168...|168...]] 17:58 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)]

{{edit semi-protected|Animal|answered=y}}

Ok. I simply didn't think it belonged at the top, because treating metazoan characteristics as if they were the normal for all animals, while standard, really obscures why things like sponges belong in the group. I've tried blocking off the metazoa, and making the nervous system a little more prominent there, as a compromise.

The maximum body length listed as 33.6 m (blue whale) is outdated. Colonial cnidarians like Apolemia reach 120–150 m (~394–492 ft) and are widely recognized as animals. [[Special:Contributions/103.106.139.17|103.106.139.17]] ([[User talk:103.106.139.17|talk]]) 09:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

----

:Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that supports this content. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 13:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

What animals are incapable of locomotion? Not sponges, at least, according to my recent Web surfing. [[User:168...|168...]] 04:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> per the above, closing this request. Feel free to re-open with a reliable source. [[User:DrOrinScrivello|DrOrinScrivello]] ([[User talk:DrOrinScrivello|talk]]) 15:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If locomotion has anything to do with moving from one ___location to another, than any of the various animals that live attached to some substratum, sponges included. If locomotion simply means rearranging some cells or wiggling some extremity, possibly none, but by those standards most plants are capable of locomotion as well.

O.K. That sounds like an excellent point. Maybe those scientists touting their discovery of sponge movements were just grasping for some undeserved limelight by calling it locomotion. I haven't read the studies and didn't realize (assuming it's true) that sponges spend their entire adult lives anchored to one spot. Anyway, I guess I know anenomes and corals do, and if I'd just remembered I wouldn't have neglected to qualify "locomotion" as a less than universal characteristic of animals. I'm glad you agree that its sub-universality doesn't make it unimportant to the concept of animals. [[User:168...|168...]] 05:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

----

At the list of animals, some were capped, and others weren't (most weren't). So I uncapped all of them. ("Human" was capped...seemed possibly anthropomorphic...j/k, sort of...) Unless capping these terms is some convention in biology, of course. [[User:Revolver|Revolver]] 08:21, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)