397:
376:
85:
64:
31:
1293:
than a c class) considering it gets 100k views every year and is such an important clade. No mention of the anatomy of
Xenacoelomorpha is present, and the article treats bilateria as if it is solely regarding Nephrozoans. I'm not massively fussed on the merger, but the bilaterian article needs to be significantly improved. I've also seen that none of the comments have any opinion on the merging of the Urbilaterian article into bilateria, and I would like to hear some feedback on that idea.
95:
22:
934:)shows Deuterostomes consisting of Ambulacraria and Chordata. On the other hand, in this section, Chordata is shown as a sister group to Protostomia, with Xenambulacraria as an outgroup. It is important to remember that Xenambulacraria is a proposed clade, and there is not yet consensus as to its existence. As such, the tree now totally contradicts the article that Ahalda based the tree on, as above.
1311:
scientists.) and the primary division was protostome/deterostome. The phylogeny was updated to show
Nephrozoa but other sections were not changed to reflect this. The description of the phylogeny says it's a 2011 consensus, although the actual cladogram has been updated without proper sourcing (a general problem across the higher animal taxa articles). It's difficult to know where to start.
212:
1380:, thought this obviously isn't news to other commenters. Though the authors of this study are far from certain and this is still unresolved. I agree that discussion should be closed, but there should be some kind of plan to comprehensively improve the article, an article as important as Bilateria should at least have GA status really.
1292:
The comments of this imply that the current bilateria article is somehow clear in it's distinction to
Nephrozoa, which just isn't true. Regardless of what one thinks about merging, the current article on bilaterians is laughably bad and completely inadequate, (probably only worth a start class rather
978:
I strongly support this change. I'd been meaning to do something similar, a tree based on the
Giribet/Nielsen consensus phylogenies, but never got around to it. An article as central as bilateria has to use a consensus scheme, built on multiple secondary sources, not the latest controversial proposal
906:
I am not a biologist and do not really know much about ancient phylogenies -- that's what I came here to learn! Nielsen's phylogeny was inconsistent with info from most other wiki pages, which confused me. This is just to say that it would be good if someone more knowledgeable could double check that
680:
Newer articles based on molecular methods tend to agree in dividing the
Bilateria into the three supergroups Lophotrocozoa, Ecdysozoa and Deuterostoma. The arthropods (or Panarthropoda) should definitely not be close to either the Annelida or the molluscs. Seven years is a very long time in phylogeny
1216:
sister relationship is supported by most genomic evidence. What most of this article discusses are
Nephrozoans, so there's very little point having another article that mostly overlaps in scope with this one. This article needs to talk more about the morphology of Xenocoelomorphs and the difference
1433:
Not for us to speculate, really. If it emerges that one of those is the new taxonomy as recognised in major phylogenetic review papers, we will have to go with it. That change may be in progress but is not yet complete. The proposal should be closed, editors are not in favour of such a premature
1333:
Some general points. 1) There appears to be a significant branching there. 2) The features of both branches, and the root can be discussed for such a branching. 3) At this point it may not be clear what the salient features of
Bilateria vs Nephrozoa exactly are, given that the exact phylogeny is
1310:
I think the problem with this article is that it was mostly written ten years ago and only a few bits have been updated, without consideration of the overall structure. It looks like parts were written when aceols were considered secondarily simplified (a view that is making a comeback with some
1035:
It appears that last year the indentations of the taxa in the infobox were modified which inadvertently moved the nematode worms and the arthropods out of ecdysozoa. I have partially reverted this. But if the modification was intentional, then please feel free to restore the page to how it was
902:
Given there has been discussion for 7 years now that the phylogenetic tree on the page is inaccurate by modern standards, I've replaces the
Nielsen phylogeny with a modern tree which claims to have "broad consensus", from a 2011 review article in "Organisms Diversity and Evolution". This article
771:
538:
article, and the most recent and methodologically rigorous study I've found (Paps et al. 2009) indicates that
Platyzoa should be considered a paraphyletic group allied with Lophotrochozoa, with Platyhelminthes as a close sister to the "Spiralia", and the other proposed members as outgroups more
963:
I decided to resurrect the long-term-consensus tree from June 2019 and place it above the newly proposed one with
Xenambulacraria. This hopefully will show readers the usual consensus of protostomes vis-Ă -vis deuterostomes, and also allow the reader to see the new proposed one. I included the
937:
The citations given as support of proposed Deuterostome obsolescence do not support the tree currently presented. The Yamasaki et al. paper admits: "Although the majority of our analyses recover a monophyletic group of chordates plus protostomes, the support values are very low, meaning
1240:
such a proposal. I think that it's important to have a separate article for major clades, even if these articles amount to stubs. This is very common throughout the tree of life that we have here. Merging and leaving a redirect would make the situation far less clear for the reader.
516:
The classification of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa and Platyzoa as equal to Deuterostomia is relatively recent, and likely not fully accepted. Yes, the two schemes should be mentioned in the various articles, but we don't need a detailed discussion in every article; perhaps
505:
If these two scheme are in fact competitive analyses, surely the 2 hypotheses should at least be mentioned in all the relevant articles , instead of some silently adopting one and some the other. (I was taught protostomia, but that doesn't prove it correct)
926:
The tree as shown in the article is totally messed up now. It depicts Deuterostomes as a non-existent clade, even though this is not yet the scientific consensus. The remainder of the section contradicts the depicted tree. The Edgecombe et al. article from
821:
as an adjective. Examples from Google's first page: bilaterian fossils, bilaterian features, bilaterian animals, bilaterian ancestors, bilaterian evolution, the Bilaterian superphylum -- but also just one use as noun: "the early origin of bilaterians".
1255:
Agree. The major clades should have their own articles, even if limited in scope. We don't want a lot of duplication, so it makes sense that most of the detail is handled by one of the articles, in this case the better known and more stable one.
1808:
DrĂĄbkovĂĄ, Marie; Kocot, Kevin M.; Halanych, Kenneth M.; Oakley, Todd H.; Moroz, Leonid L.; Cannon, Johanna T.; Kuris, Armand; Garcia-Vedrenne, Ana Elisa; Pankey, M. Sabrina; Ellis, Emily A.; Varney, Rebecca; Ć tefka, Jan; ZrzavĂœ, Jan (2022-07-13).
1696:
I agree it is important not only to mention it in text but also present an alternative phylogram. Btw, the high level of detail of the phylograms and taxobox is counterproductiv - the higher-level clades inside Spiralia also are far from certain.
945:
Where is the consensus for the demolition of Deuterostomes? Where is the consensus that Chordata are a sister group to Protostomia, with Ambulacraria far away as an outgroup? I see no consensus. The sources do not support this
910:
I also have only made minor modifications to the text preceding the new tree, it might need more updates. This tree might be useful to copy/expand to other pages too (eg the metazoan page), but I have not looked into that yet.
1475:
and advocating which way the field will go. The dust has not settled. If the field comes to an agreement that Bilateria should be merged with Nephrozoa, or that Deuterostomia should be obsoleted (as you similarly advocate),
979:
in a couple of primary sources. I'd also be inclined to trim the tree of the extinct groups whose placement is speculative. This tree should show the mainstream thinking on the relationships of the main groups at a glance.
1588:
Philippe, HervĂ©; Poustka, Albert J.; Chiodin, Marta; Hoff, Katharina J.; Dessimoz, Christophe; Tomiczek, Bartlomiej; Schiffer, Philipp H.; MĂŒller, Steven; Domman, Daryl; Horn, Matthias; Kuhl, Heiner (2019-06-03).
719:
I'm also quite amazed at the inclusion of the Brachiopods and Phoronids into the Deuterostome clade, I was never aware this was even considered. I think this cladogram needs to be seriously updated or scrapped.
1680:
grouping. Should this be followed in the alternate tree shown in the article grouping Chordata and Protostomia? Here, this grouping is referred to as Nephrozoa, which clashes with the common use of that term.
1307:
I oppose that merger too, at least for now. I think the effort should be to improve the articles rather than just rearrange the material. Perhaps in doing so the case for mergers or not might become clearer.
1058:
I'd like to discuss this. Although all members of Bilateria have bilateral symmetry, I'm not sure it has been established that all animals with bilateral symmetry are Bilateria. Does anyone have a ref on
628:
I'm no expert in the phylogeny of animal phyla, but is the phylogeny given (cited to Nielsen) at all credible? It looks like a rather old, and now obsolete, version to me (particularly in presenting the
1901:
35:
1004:
That's fine. It's hard to accomodate Xenacoelomorpha - Ambulacraria sistership without "messing everything up". Xenacoelomorpha - Ambulacraria sistership was the main result of this paper.
1725:
Kapli, Paschalia; Natsidis, Paschalis; Leite, Daniel J.; Fursman, Maximilian; Jeffrie, Nadia; Rahman, Imran A.; Philippe, Hervé; Copley, Richard R.; Telford, Maximilian J. (2021-03-19).
855:"Bilateria" is tricky. No formal singular. Possibly a collective noun. Can denote both the actual critters (plural) and the taxon (abstract singular noun?) Are you sorry you asked? :-)
1891:
1906:
1788:
659:
about 2 years later, in order to solve the discrepancies between morphological data and molecular dito. Therefore Nielsen's phylogeny of 2001 should be considered obsolete.
502:; it & its taxobox similiarly group the three, as do the articles for Ecdysoza, Lophotrochozoa, and Platyzoa, all supported by both embryological and molecular data.
1018:
The consensus remains that Deuterostomes are a clade and that xenambulacraria (comprising xenacoelomorpha and amulacraria) are the sister clade to the chordates. See
709:
544:
456:
740:
473:
1698:
1416:
Actually, if Xenambulacraria is monophyletic, either Deuterostomia becomes synonymous with Chordata, or Nephrozoa becomes synonymous with Bilateria.
686:
160:
1931:
446:
323:
1471:, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." This means we cannot start doing
283:
835:(< German ur- 'original') is the hypothetical last common ancestor of the bilaterian clade, i.e., all animals having a bilateral symmetry."
232:
534:
Is there a recent paper supporting the monophyly of the platyzoans? I've been trying to appraise myself of the most current science for the
1936:
682:
340:
348:
1410:
932:
1302:
1886:
1389:
1371:
1250:
1462:
the support values are very low, meaning there is no solid evidence to refute the traditional protostome and deuterostome dichotomy.
973:
1926:
949:
Therefore, somebody please fix this broken tree. It does not reflect the current consensus, and it contradicts the section itself.
510:
1443:
1285:
1916:
1896:
1591:"Mitigating Anticipated Effects of Systematic Errors Supports Sister-Group Relationship between Xenacoelomorpha and Ambulacraria"
1353:
1321:
1266:
223:
150:
1489:
1013:
989:
1574:
1230:
1155:
958:
889:
871:
1921:
548:
249:
671:
417:
404:
381:
1499:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1425:
1198:
494:
The article and taxobox for Bilateria, to which all these groups belong, recognizes the first three of them as members of
1638:
705:
698:
The Nielsen phylogeny is really old. It should be removed or replaced. The german "Bilateria" page is quite up to date.
690:
344:
527:
540:
743:
1811:"Different phylogenomic methods support monophyly of enigmatic 'Mesozoa' (Dicyemida + Orthonectida, Lophotrochozoa)"
559:
I don't know much about this at all, but this reference suggests these distinctions date back to the Cambrian era.
1911:
778:- hypothesis that bilaterian plan evolved from genes that specify adult body plan in radially symmetric animals. --
713:
1276:- The clades are not synonymous. Merging them would make it even harder for readers to parse the distinctions. --
849:
729:
1881:
858:
Adjective functioning as noun (in this case "bilaterian") is normal - there's an implied noun, e.g. "bilaterian
645:
which was conventional wisdom until the late 20th century or so but which I'm not sure is widely held any more).
498:, correlate to Deuterostomia, as does the classification in the talk for Animalia. There is also an article for
1706:
1068:
754:
1570:
1518:"Comparative and Evolutionary Physiology of Vasopressin/ Oxytocin-Type Neuropeptide Signaling in Invertebrates"
1349:
964:
authors' caution that their one paper is not enough to overturn the usual deuterostome-protostome dichotomy.
734:
656:
649:
422:
258:
126:
113:
69:
1377:
920:
790:
44:
1646:
1863:
Polyzoa is back: The effect of complete gene sets on the placement of Ectoprocta and Entoprocta - Science
1045:
1082:
601:
563:
1590:
1794:
1690:
1064:
897:
739:
20,000 species are quoted, whereas the Echinoderm page only says 7,000 species - which is correct? --
623:
1517:
189:
1362:
Should this proposal be closed? It's been more than a month. Or, do we need a Request for Closure?
1030:
766:
573:
1637:
Is another possible alternative xenambulacraria being nested within a natural deuterostome group?
199:
194:
1642:
1439:
1406:
184:
1686:
1385:
1298:
1226:
814:
725:
931:
does not agree with the tree presented in this section: Figure 1 of that paper (available at:
1632:
1564:
1485:
1472:
1367:
1246:
969:
954:
637:
as forming a single clade which I believe was discarded quite some time ago, and uniting the
597:
316:
242:
173:
50:
1401:. It's clearly notable and a major clade. Need for updating does not mean need for merging.
1738:
1702:
1337:
1060:
1050:
701:
940:
there is no solid evidence to refute the traditional protostome and deuterostome dichotomy
396:
375:
8:
1790:
Systematic errors in phylogenomics with a focus on the major metazoan clade Deuterostomia
1345:
885:
845:
795:
Are nouns and adjectives confused in our articles? Or am I confused (just as likely)?
655:
Seems like no older than 2001, but it's troublesome by the fact that Nielsen proposed an
21:
1742:
1841:
1810:
1765:
1726:
1548:
1435:
1402:
1281:
1135:
1104:
306:
271:
1055:"The bilateria , bilaterians, or triploblasts, are animals with bilateral symmetry, "
1862:
1846:
1830:
1770:
1754:
1682:
1651:
1617:
1610:
1553:
1537:
1468:
1421:
1381:
1317:
1294:
1262:
1222:
1194:
1140:
1124:
1078:
1009:
985:
867:
783:
762:
721:
569:
There probably should be a paragraph concerning (postulated) evolutionary origins.
522:
1837:
1822:
1761:
1746:
1727:"Lack of support for Deuterostomia prompts reinterpretation of the first Bilateria"
1602:
1544:
1529:
1481:
1363:
1242:
1131:
1116:
965:
950:
916:
666:
593:
554:
84:
63:
1209:
748:
1334:
balancing between "determined by molecular analyses", and "still under debate."
1665:
1041:
881:
841:
535:
483:
409:
298:
266:
254:
100:
1606:
880:
I am an American and apparently also a bilaterian. Not sorry I asked. :-) -
416:. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at
1875:
1833:
1757:
1673:
1613:
1540:
1533:
1277:
1127:
491:
413:
332:
328:
1849:
1826:
1773:
1750:
1620:
1556:
1452:
1417:
1341:
1313:
1258:
1218:
1190:
1143:
1120:
1074:
1005:
981:
863:
832:
779:
758:
646:
94:
1677:
1661:
1103:
Baguñà , Jaume; Martinez, Pere; Paps, Jordi; Riutort, Marta (2008-04-27).
912:
681:
these days, and the tree should definitely be exchanged for a newer one.
663:
570:
495:
276:
642:
634:
518:
499:
1109:
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
1669:
1213:
1186:
1182:
1037:
583:
479:
564:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
1657:
638:
507:
487:
408:, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to
262:
117:, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
589:
Ref Digital Technology and Science Editor, The Sun,6th June 2018:
630:
122:
1189:
as it remains a distinct and independently notable major clade.
586:
Period, between 635 and 541 million years ago, Pre-Cambrian era.
1902:
Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
757:
contains a nice summary and cites the peer-reviewed source. --
118:
1457:
In the Philippe et al. 2019 paper, the authors literally say
211:
1807:
1217:
between them and Nephrozoans. it is also possible that the
1105:"Back in time: a new systematic proposal for the Bilateria"
862:". Other include e.g. "the Americans". Hope this helps. --
1587:
1724:
1102:
1892:
Knowledge vital articles in Biology and health sciences
1815:
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
1516:
Odekunle, Esther A.; Elphick, Maurice R. (2020-04-17).
1907:
B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
1170:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
539:
closely related to Lophotrochozoa than Ecdysozoa. --
90:
478:The taxobox in Animalia and the article lists the
772:Expression of the Head GeneLox22-Otxin the Leech
1873:
1515:
755:Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution
1208:Per the above discussion, it's clear that the
1173:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
490:as separate superphyla at the same level as
1221:article could also be merged into this one.
903:discusses many alternative trees as well.
474:differences in classification of superphyla
801:is a noun, plural. What is its singular?
776:and the Origin of the Bilaterian Body Plan
1840:
1764:
1547:
1134:
1786:
829:also be a noun? It looks like it here:
245:into articles about endangered species.
1932:High-importance Animal anatomy articles
319:into articles about endangered species.
19:
1874:
1718:
837:, but seems wrong (to me) elsewhere.
1656:Several recent studies refer to the
1164:The following discussion is closed.
431:Knowledge:WikiProject Animal anatomy
15:
1937:WikiProject Animal anatomy articles
929:Organisms Diversity & Evolution
434:Template:WikiProject Animal anatomy
49:It is of interest to the following
13:
1787:Natsidis, Paschalis (2022-05-28).
1378:controversy is still on as of 2019
582:New find moves Bilateria into The
341:Science collaboration of the month
125:. For more information, visit the
14:
1948:
1573:) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
1073:Of course you appear to be right.
420:. This project is an offshoot of
349:WikiProject Animals Collaboration
1887:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
1495:The discussion above is closed.
395:
374:
210:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
1927:B-Class Animal anatomy articles
521:is the best place for that. --
451:This article has been rated as
155:This article has been rated as
1917:Top-importance animal articles
1897:B-Class level-4 vital articles
1856:
1801:
1780:
1581:
1509:
1156:Merge Nephrozoa into Bilateria
1096:
1069:09:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
890:09:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
872:07:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
850:19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
612:
1:
1390:19:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1372:19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
1354:14:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1083:13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
1014:19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
714:12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
259:Tool use by non-human animals
135:Knowledge:WikiProject Animals
1922:WikiProject Animals articles
1707:15:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
1691:13:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
1668:", removing confusion with "
1322:08:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
1303:04:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
1286:15:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1267:08:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1251:06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1231:01:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
744:11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
672:17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
528:01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
511:03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
138:Template:WikiProject Animals
7:
1647:06:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
1199:21:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
990:06:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
974:05:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
959:04:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
921:17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
650:14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
10:
1953:
1569:: CS1 maint: PMC format (
1522:Frontiers in Endocrinology
1411:21:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
549:22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
457:project's importance scale
418:WikiProject Animal anatomy
405:WikiProject Animal anatomy
161:project's importance scale
1795:University College London
1607:10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.009
1490:15:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1480:should Knowledge follow.
1444:12:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1426:12:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1046:10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
767:12:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
691:16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
574:16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
450:
390:
345:Article Improvement Drive
317:GLAM/ARKive donated texts
243:GLAM/ARKive donated texts
167:
154:
78:
57:
1534:10.3389/fendo.2020.00225
1497:Please do not modify it.
1167:Please do not modify it.
730:04:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
602:23:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
402:This article is part of
1912:B-Class animal articles
437:Animal anatomy articles
111:is within the scope of
1882:B-Class vital articles
1827:10.1098/rspb.2022.0683
1751:10.1126/sciadv.abe2741
1464:
1121:10.1098/rstb.2007.2238
1460:
735:Echinoderms (Taxobox)
657:alternative phylogeny
275:(a species in family
36:level-4 vital article
1601:(11): 1818â1826.e6.
1036:before I edited it.
791:Nouns and adjectives
172:WikiProject Animals
1743:2021SciA....7.2741K
1115:(1496): 1481â1491.
907:my addition is OK.
423:WikiProject Animals
114:WikiProject Animals
1821:(1978): 20220683.
1672:" which implies a
1633:Two possible trees
1478:then and only then
338:Nominate and vote:
307:Zaniolepis frenata
272:Sphaerium beckmani
45:content assessment
1356:
1340:comment added by
898:Updated Phylogeny
813:is an adjective;
807:is an adjective.
704:comment added by
624:Nielsen phylogeny
471:
470:
467:
466:
463:
462:
369:
368:
365:
364:
361:
360:
357:
356:
1944:
1865:
1860:
1854:
1853:
1844:
1805:
1799:
1798:
1784:
1778:
1777:
1768:
1737:(12): eabe2741.
1731:Science Advances
1722:
1625:
1624:
1585:
1579:
1578:
1568:
1560:
1551:
1513:
1456:
1434:reorganisation.
1335:
1320:
1265:
1169:
1148:
1147:
1138:
1100:
1031:modified infobox
1020:
1019:
988:
716:
670:
616:
439:
438:
435:
432:
429:
399:
392:
391:
386:
378:
371:
370:
214:
206:
205:
169:
168:
143:
142:
139:
136:
133:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
58:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1861:
1857:
1806:
1802:
1785:
1781:
1723:
1719:
1654:
1635:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1595:Current Biology
1586:
1582:
1562:
1561:
1514:
1510:
1501:
1500:
1450:
1376:Apparently the
1312:
1257:
1210:Xenacoelomorpha
1206:
1165:
1158:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1101:
1097:
1061:Ordinary Person
1053:
1033:
980:
900:
793:
751:
737:
699:
660:
626:
621:
620:
619:
613:
557:
476:
453:High-importance
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
385:Highâimportance
384:
353:
204:
141:animal articles
140:
137:
134:
131:
130:
99:
92:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1950:
1940:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1914:
1909:
1904:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1867:
1866:
1855:
1800:
1779:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1666:Centroneuralia
1653:
1652:Centroneuralia
1650:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1580:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1465:
1458:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1414:
1413:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1357:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1308:
1289:
1288:
1270:
1269:
1253:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1087:
1052:
1049:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
947:
943:
935:
899:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
875:
874:
856:
792:
789:
788:
787:
769:
750:
747:
736:
733:
696:
695:
694:
693:
675:
674:
625:
622:
618:
617:
610:
609:
605:
591:
590:
587:
580:
567:
566:
556:
553:
552:
551:
536:Lophotrochozoa
531:
530:
484:Lophotrochozoa
475:
472:
469:
468:
465:
464:
461:
460:
449:
443:
442:
440:
428:Animal anatomy
410:animal anatomy
400:
388:
387:
382:Animal anatomy
379:
367:
366:
363:
362:
359:
358:
355:
354:
352:
351:
335:
320:
311:
310:
309:
301:
299:Campocraspedon
296:Invertebrates:
293:
280:
267:Animal suicide
255:Photoperiodism
246:
237:
220:Here are some
219:
217:
215:
203:
202:
197:
192:
187:
181:
178:
177:
165:
164:
157:Top-importance
153:
147:
146:
144:
105:
104:
101:Animals portal
88:
76:
75:
73:Topâimportance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1949:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1905:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1864:
1859:
1851:
1848:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1804:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1783:
1775:
1772:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1674:Deuterostomia
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:74.101.251.49
1622:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1584:
1576:
1572:
1566:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1498:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:Chiswick Chap
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:Chiswick Chap
1400:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1254:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1211:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1162:
1161:
1145:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1056:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
991:
987:
983:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
941:
936:
933:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
908:
904:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
838:
836:
834:
828:
823:
820:
816:
812:
808:
806:
802:
800:
796:
785:
781:
777:
775:
770:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
752:
746:
745:
742:
732:
731:
727:
723:
717:
715:
711:
707:
706:78.48.240.154
703:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
673:
669:
668:
665:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
615:
611:
608:
604:
603:
599:
595:
588:
585:
581:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
565:
562:
561:
560:
550:
546:
542:
537:
533:
532:
529:
526:
525:
524:Donald Albury
520:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
503:
501:
497:
493:
492:Deuterostomia
489:
485:
481:
458:
454:
448:
445:
444:
441:
425:
424:
419:
415:
414:human anatomy
411:
407:
406:
401:
398:
394:
393:
389:
383:
380:
377:
373:
372:
350:
346:
342:
339:
336:
334:
333:Atka mackerel
330:
329:Junqueira cow
327:
325:
321:
318:
315:
312:
308:
305:
302:
300:
297:
294:
292:
289:
288:
287:
285:
281:
278:
274:
273:
268:
264:
260:
256:
253:
251:
247:
244:
241:
238:
236:
234:
230:
229:
227:
226:
225:
218:
216:
213:
208:
207:
201:
198:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
182:
180:
179:
175:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
152:
149:
148:
145:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
110:
109:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1858:
1818:
1814:
1803:
1789:
1782:
1734:
1730:
1720:
1712:
1683:Chaotic Enby
1655:
1636:
1598:
1594:
1583:
1565:cite journal
1525:
1521:
1511:
1503:
1496:
1477:
1461:
1415:
1398:
1382:Hemiauchenia
1359:
1336:â Preceding
1330:
1295:Hemiauchenia
1274:Oppose merge
1273:
1237:
1223:Hemiauchenia
1219:Urbilaterian
1207:
1178:
1172:
1166:
1163:
1112:
1108:
1098:
1090:
1086:
1072:
1057:
1054:
1051:lede wording
1034:
939:
928:
909:
905:
901:
859:
839:
833:urbilaterian
830:
826:
824:
818:
810:
809:
804:
803:
798:
797:
794:
773:
741:Graminophile
738:
722:Rolf Schmidt
718:
697:
661:
627:
614:
606:
594:Telecine Guy
592:
568:
558:
541:24.5.147.203
523:
504:
477:
452:
421:
403:
337:
322:
313:
303:
295:
290:
282:
270:
248:
239:
231:
222:
221:
209:
156:
127:project page
112:
107:
106:
51:WikiProjects
34:
1678:Protostomia
1662:Protostomia
1482:BirdValiant
1473:speculation
1364:BirdValiant
1243:BirdValiant
966:BirdValiant
951:BirdValiant
840:Thanks. -
700:âPreceding
496:Protostomia
412:apart from
277:Sphaeriidae
1876:Categories
1713:References
1699:Petr Karel
1664:group as "
1504:References
1469:WP:PRIMARY
1091:References
827:bilaterian
811:Bilaterian
774:Helobdella
643:arthropoda
635:Entoprocta
607:References
519:Protostome
500:Protostome
224:Open Tasks
1834:0962-8452
1758:2375-2548
1670:Nephrozoa
1614:0960-9822
1541:1664-2392
1214:Nephrozoa
1187:Bilateria
1183:Nephrozoa
1128:0962-8436
882:Hordaland
842:Hordaland
817:lists it
805:Bilateral
799:Bilateria
584:Ediacaran
480:Ecdysozoa
108:Bilateria
39:is rated
1850:35858055
1774:33741592
1658:Chordata
1621:31104936
1557:32362874
1360:Question
1350:contribs
1338:unsigned
1144:18192186
702:unsigned
639:annelida
555:Cambrian
488:Platyzoa
291:Mammals:
284:Requests
263:Omnivore
233:Copyedit
1842:9257288
1793:(PhD).
1766:7978419
1739:Bibcode
1549:7181382
1528:: 225.
1453:Jmv2009
1418:Jmv2009
1342:Jmv2009
1314:Jts1882
1259:Jts1882
1238:against
1191:Klbrain
1136:2615819
1075:Jmv2009
1006:Jmv2009
982:Jts1882
864:Philcha
815:Encarta
780:Philcha
759:Philcha
749:Sources
647:Kingdon
631:Bryozoa
579:Update:
455:on the
304:Fishes:
250:Improve
190:history
159:on the
132:Animals
123:zoology
119:animals
70:Animals
41:B-class
1399:Oppose
1331:Oppose
1278:Nessie
1181:merge
913:Ahalda
860:animal
664:Rursus
662:Said:
571:MaxEnt
486:, and
324:Expand
314:Merge:
240:Merge:
47:scale.
1467:From
1185:into
1059:this?
946:idea.
831:"The
683:Jonht
200:purge
195:watch
174:To-do
28:This
1847:PMID
1831:ISSN
1771:PMID
1755:ISSN
1703:talk
1687:talk
1643:talk
1618:PMID
1611:ISSN
1575:link
1571:link
1554:PMID
1538:ISSN
1486:talk
1440:talk
1422:talk
1407:talk
1386:talk
1368:talk
1346:talk
1318:talk
1299:talk
1263:talk
1247:talk
1236:I'm
1227:talk
1195:talk
1141:PMID
1125:ISSN
1079:talk
1065:talk
1042:talk
1038:Bwrs
1010:talk
986:talk
970:talk
955:talk
917:talk
886:talk
868:talk
846:talk
825:Can
819:only
784:talk
763:talk
726:talk
710:talk
687:talk
641:and
633:and
598:talk
545:talk
447:High
185:edit
121:and
1838:PMC
1823:doi
1819:289
1762:PMC
1747:doi
1603:doi
1545:PMC
1530:doi
1179:not
1177:To
1132:PMC
1117:doi
1113:363
942:" .
508:DGG
279:),
151:Top
1878::
1845:.
1836:.
1829:.
1817:.
1813:.
1769:.
1760:.
1753:.
1745:.
1733:.
1729:.
1705:)
1689:)
1645:)
1616:.
1609:.
1599:29
1597:.
1593:.
1567:}}
1563:{{
1552:.
1543:.
1536:.
1526:11
1524:.
1520:.
1488:)
1442:)
1424:)
1409:)
1388:)
1370:)
1352:)
1348:âą
1301:)
1284:)
1282:đ„
1249:)
1229:)
1197:)
1139:.
1130:.
1123:.
1111:.
1107:.
1081:)
1067:)
1044:)
1012:)
972:)
957:)
919:)
888:)
870:)
848:)
765:)
728:)
712:)
689:)
600:)
547:)
482:,
347:,
343:,
331:,
269:,
265:,
261:,
257:,
1852:.
1825::
1797:.
1776:.
1749::
1741::
1735:7
1701:(
1685:(
1676:+
1660:+
1641:(
1623:.
1605::
1577:)
1559:.
1532::
1484:(
1455::
1451:@
1438:(
1420:(
1405:(
1384:(
1366:(
1344:(
1316:|
1297:(
1280:(
1261:|
1245:(
1225:(
1212:-
1193:(
1146:.
1119::
1077:(
1063:(
1040:(
1008:(
984:|
968:(
953:(
915:(
884:(
866:(
844:(
786:)
782:(
761:(
724:(
708:(
685:(
667:â»
596:(
543:(
459:.
326::
286::
252::
235::
228::
176::
163:.
129:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
