Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Sponge

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

I'm a bit new to editing Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure this is how you make a request. Correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless I think Porifera incertae sedis should be added to the list of classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CltrAltDelicious (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

porifera has radial symmetry 117.192.205.128 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

add photo of skeletal structure?

hi...new to wikipedia here. I'd like to add a photo showing skeletal structure of a live sponge. There is lots of discussion of spicules and skeletal structure in the article without illustration.

This is the photo I would like to add. I'm too new to edit this page.

closeup photo of the demosponge Callyspongia plicifera showing silica skeleton

Jessica Rosenkrantz (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sponge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sponge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Overview section needs improvement regarding the taxonomic relationships among different kinds of sponges. For example, the section refers to Demosponges, sponges with silica, sponges with calcium carbonate skeletons, and Calcareous sponges. It is unclear whether these are four mutually exclusive taxa, whether some of these taxa overlap partially, or whether some of these taxa are completely subsumed under supraordinate taxa. Someone who understands the classification (assuming the classification is not controversial) and also can write clearly should edit the section with eye toward using clear and simple language to indicate the interrelationships among the sponge species groupings noted above. ~PB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb1618 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal range

The infobox says Ediacaran-recent but the evolution section (and other articles like Cryogenian and Animal) state that sponges were likely around earlier during or after the Marinoan glaciation. Should the infobox be changed, at least with "possible Cryogenian record"? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical

Please, experts, tell me what the first sentence is supposed to convey to a scientifically literate nonspecialist? I can tell you: virtually nothing. The introduction to a WP article is supposed to be meaningful to an educated reader. This is hopeless. Will someone please put in some plain English? And thanks. Zaslav (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Porifera as sister group to all other Metazoa debate really definitively resolved? (April 2020)

This article seems to cite at least twice the 2017 article which claims that Porifera are the sister group to all Metazoa without any qualifications, as if it were incontrovertibly established fact. (In particular in the first paragraph, rather than say something more neutral, like "some sources suggest that...".) However another 2017 paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664179/ claims that Ctenophores are the sister group to all Metazoa, and this other paper is not mentioned in the article at all, which seems to give an incomplete picture of the discussion of the topic among professional biologists and thus seems to possibly be a disservice to the readers and users of Wikipedia. Neither study can seriously be considered definitive, since neither study uses whole-genome data, and thus do not use all available biological information. (Nor does either study have sufficiently many outgroups, and focusing only on genes transcribed into amino acids completely neglects information which could be contained in pseudogenes about lost characteristics.) Both studies make questionable arguments and use questionable methods, and therefore the questions regarding the phylogenetic relationships among Metazoa can not be considered to be definitely resolved as the introduction of this article seems to purport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.142.229 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "relationships to other animal groups" needs to be re-written. Right at the end of this section the article references 2023 research 2023 research that convincingly places ctenophores as the sister group to all other animals including sponges. This research contradicts most of what precedes in the article including the diagrams (though one of those simply omits ctenophores), so it is odd to leave it hanging in this way. The research does not conclude the question of sponge monophyly but is not inconsistent with it and does support parahoxozoan monophyly. Anropa (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of sponges" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of sponges. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 22#List of sponges until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph makes mention of the common ancestor of all animals, which should link to the page on the urmetazoan. Instead it links to the last universal common ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA31:1040:C34:75DA:9EEC:EEE2 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sponges do not appear to be sessile after all

At least not exclusively. Apparently it was known that they were facultatively mobile for a while, but this seems to be the first report of mobile sponges in the wild.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00353-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982221003535%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

I'd add this myself but I've mostly just done simple grammar and clarity edits in the past and am not sure of the standards for what to cite and how to cite it, especially for a scientific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazeboist (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge loop section; missing original reference in text

Dear editors,

I read the Sponge Wikipedia with great interest as sponge biologist. However, I find it strange that under the 'sponge loop' paragraph, the mechanism is attributed to Rix et al.2018 (ref 71), Rix et al. 2017 (ref 72 and 75? is actually same ref) and Rix et al. 2016 (ref 74). However, the original sponge loop hypothesis is published in Science in 2013 (de Goeij et al. 2013, ref 73), and in fact first proposed in my PhD thesis in 2009. I think it is important to credit the original publication more than wikipedia does now. I am also part of the Rix and colleagues publications and those are great works, but not the original contribution to the sponge loop theory and mechanism. Please let me know how I can help to edit this, since I am not familiar with editing Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JM de Goeij (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Sponges, the members of the phylum Porifera (/pəˈrɪfərə/; meaning 'pore bearer'), are a basal animal clade as a sister of the Diploblasts.[3][4][5][6][7] They are multicellular organisms that have bodies full of pores and channels allowing water to circulate through them, consisting of jelly-like mesohyl sandwiched between two thin layers of cells. The branch of zoology that studies sponges is known as spongiology.[8] 122.106.252.176 (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monophyletic or paraphyletic?

Is this phylum monophyletic or paraphyletic? The article dosen't seem to give a clear answer. 2001:1970:4885:CC00:0:0:0:767B (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure as phylogenetics showing it as paraphyletic have existed for a long time and even as recently as a week ago. at the same time there are many that just consider them monophyletic instead. for the time it is probably best to stick with the monophyletic model while showcasing the paraphyletic alternatives until a better consensus is established. Zacharyman1mil (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parazoan, Myriazoan, or neither?

On {{Taxonomy/Porifera}}, poriferans have been placed in either Parazoa or Myriazoa. § Taxonomy gives sources for both placements. I think the taxobox should give the most specific placement for which there is consensus, so I'm restoring Animalia for now. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Bacterial Endosymbionts

I just wanted to add something I recently read wherein cryptic (AKA hidden) encrusted sponges were found to absorb high quantities of dissolve organic matter. This is much smaller organic "food" than was previously thought and the authors indicate that the role of endosymbiont bacteria (they do not specify which) play heavily into this. "We conclude ... 3 sponge-microbe associations are ... 'dissolved organic matter (DOM)-feeders'" Sponges are very important for carbon cycling and dissolved carbon re-uptake in reef ecosystems. [1]https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07403] Spacefatty (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

Remove Stephen Hillenberg from notable spongeologists. Seems to have been added due to his creation of SpongeBob, but is not actually a spongologist. 76.218.237.48 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASponge