Talk:Animal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Could be a better/more inclusive article"

For starters, there seem to be way too many photos of invertebrates on the main display. And why is there not a single picture of any of the primates? Or even of a homo sapien? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.212.152 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is that only a small minority of animals are vertebrates. With three out of the eighteen sub-images (eel; blue jay; tiger), the vertebrates are already greatly over-represented. However, this is, of course, a human encyclopaedia so bias towards our tiny twig on the tree of life is understandable. I think the author of the composite image deliberately avoided excessive primate parochialism (and I'm on his side - though I understand your point of view). FredV (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Newt lung cell image: over-hasty RV?

I looked at the Commons page to check the original caption, and RV'd a recent change according to what I found. However, the NIH's (original owner's) text doesn't contain that wording; I may have been relying on something not so reliable after all. Can anybody take this further, perhaps with a new reference? --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Tag on simple statement about the Cambrian explosion.

What's desired there? Is it someone contesting evolution? That it is called what it is, and is an accepted fact of modern science shourd suffice but a selection of the references from the article could certainly be supplied if that were apropos. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag, as the observation that most phyla appeared in the Cambrian explosion is cited later in the article, and the MOS normally calls for not using citations in the lede. -- Donald Albury 12:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012

Animals are stupid people

59.92.47.27 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No edit made. IP editor request was not constructive. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012

79.71.99.74 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I HAVE A HARD FEELING THAT ANIMALS ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS BUT HAVE THE SAME HEART.--79.71.99.74 (talk)

No edit made. Not a request. – Jonadin (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012

79.71.99.74 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I HAVE A HARD FEELING THAT ANIMALS ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS BUT HAVE THE SAME HEART.--79.71.99.74 (talk)

No edit made. Not a request. – Jonadin (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Way too technical

The second part of the article is so technical it's practically unreadable. I'm a physicist, so I'd consider myself an average reader (for this subject), but it's hard to follow and impossible to understand most of what is written. I'm referring to the "Groups of animals" section(s). I believe the style should me much relaxed, and the more technical information consolidated either as a separate article, or one specialist type section at the end. I'll give an example, of what I'm talking about: "In most protostomes, cells simply fill in the interior of the gastrula to form the mesoderm, called schizocoelous development, but in deuterostomes, it forms through invagination of the endoderm, called enterocoelic pouching.[64] Deuterostome embryos undergo radial cleavage during cell division, while protostomes undergo spiral cleavage." Okay I remember that there were 3 dermae in human/animal development and that's that, but why is this discussed here in such detail is beyond me, and the second sentence I don't understand at all. You could imagine a person without a science degree reading that, it will only make him confused and frustrated ...Kshegunov (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

is this apparent contradiction 'in good faith'?

the term "animal" comes from the latin animalis, meaning 'having breath'--

'definition ... encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects and humans'

how, by this definition, can we include 'sponges, jellyfish, and insects' ? these creatures clearly do not 'have breath' ?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The definition of "animal" is, of course, not determined by its etymology. Deli nk (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"converting sunlight"

I believe this sentence in the article is not quite right:

  "Plants use this energy to convert sunlight into simple sugars "

It might instead read:

  Plants use this energy to convert CO2 and H2O into simple sugars  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdupont (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 

That's an excellent point -- you're right; it's a bit misleading to say that the sunlight is converted into sugar. I've gone ahead and made the change, though using slightly different wording than you suggested (mainly because CO2 and H2O are mentioned in the next sentence, and it seemed awkward to mention them twice in such close proximity). --Smeazel (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Though sugars are the first form of reduced carbon produced by photosynthesis, they are not the only product of plant metabolism nor the only biomolecules important for the nutrition and energy supply of animals.  I revised the discussion to include the role of proteins, fats etc., while removing the special mention of glycolysis, which is just one of several energy-yielding metabolic pathways used by animals.CharlesHBennett (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

72.2.8.235 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)this is an untrue website because it can be edited by anyone

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Regarding your statement, I believe Wikipedia is "generally trustworthy" (buy not academically reliable) because incorrect information is usually removed or fixed quickly. You can also see reliability of Wikipedia for what others have said. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

Homo sapiens are an important animal species, 7 billion of them, need to have their picture too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Another reason why it's a good idea is because people unversed in biology are oft-forgetful of the reality that Homo is, in fact, a metazoan genus. In humanities academia the forgetfulness is pandemic. I can attest -- with stories to tell. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

See:also

What are "animal attacks" doing in the see also? It isn't connected to the content of the page in any meaningful way.135.19.158.135 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems utterly appropriate to me. The readers of this article are likely to be humans and attacks on us from the subject of this article are probably the single most meaningful information we can provide. — LlywelynII 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

EB

This article actually seems very well done at the moment: tight, but with a good overview and lots of links to the in-depth treatment. For use sourcing various points though; for a historical understanding of the topic; and for comparison with their treatment, here are the EB articles from the Scholar's and 1911 editions:

• Huxley, Thomas Henry (1878), "Animal Kingdom" , Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed., Vol. II, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 49–54.
• Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), "Animal" , Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 48.

 — LlywelynII 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Animal etymology

'Animal' just comes from the Latin 'animal'(gen. animalis), meaning 'live creature' or just simply 'animal'. 'Anima' does mean 'breath, soul or life', but it isn't relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRandomCat (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Perfectly relevant. Go look up the etym of Lat. animal. — LlywelynII 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an animal

See Animal#Etymology. Your own Merriam-Webster definition proves that the normal English-language use of the word "animal" isn't colloquial, and it certainly isn't incorrect. The correct use of a word is determined by how others use the word, and dictionaries exist to record that consensus. Instead of "colloquial" and "incorrect", it should say "non-scientific usage", as in Wiktionary:animal. As for scientific usage, I recognize that when studying cell structure, it's convenient to use the same word to describe me, a worm, or a sponge, just as when studying the Sun's spectrum, it's convenient to consider the Sun to be a star. But that doesn't make it colloquial or incorrect to say "tonight, as soon as we see the stars" in a love letter, and it's perfectly Standard English to distinguish between animals and humans in a context such as a farmer distinguishing who belongs in his home from who belongs in his barn. Art LaPella (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So edited. Art LaPella (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If common usage is used, then the most numerous groups, Arthropods and other invertebrates, aren't animals, which will simply make this article on mammals, is extremely destructive for a biological article, if you want to view that incorrect definition, just view it on other websites. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Luckily, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So even if an incorrect use is common, a dictionary needs to note it, while an encyclopedia can go into detail about the correct use. 99% of English speakers CAN be factually wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Two sumpsimians can be pompous on a talk page, but they can still be ignoring Wikipedia's policy of using WP:COMMON ENGLISH names, in addition to having no clue about linguistics. Art is completely correct that this article should note the common use; Art is completely correct that it's not "wrong" but simply "non-scientific"; but thankfully the current treatment seems fine. It's sourced, notes the common sense, but limits that discussion to the etym section and uses the scientific sense for the rest of the article. Seems perfect. — LlywelynII 13:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So we should edit out all parts that mention invertebrates, fish, and birds? Since common name states that an "animal" is only a non-human mammal? Editor abcdef (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Move sentence 2 after sentence 3, to help the lead flow better. (talk to) TheOtherGaelan('s contributions) 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporal Range

Is there a reason that the temporal range of the animals is listed as starting at 670 Ma, but a higher clade, Holozoa, is listed as 610 Ma, which is _sooner_? Holozoa contains Animalia, so it should be older. 204.248.56.23 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Internet and cats

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cat people and dog people

Please consider creating this proposed article on an extremely notable topic. (Sources are included).--Coin945 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)