Talk:Phylum

For other discussion on this topic see Talk:Phylum (biology)

Protozoa

What happened to phylum protozoa? I guess it's been a long time since I took a biology class... [unsigned]

have a look under Protist and protozoa. KimvdLinde 05:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... okay, Protista is the newer name. It's still not listed here. I find the list here a little confusing. It appears to only list Phyla of the Animal Kingdom. Is it intended only as an example or a work in progress? I initially missed the title and assumed the table was a list of all Phyla. [unsigned]

Requested move

I requested this change on October 2, 2005. I feel the biological sense is the dominant meaning for phlyum. No one commented on the proposal, and after two weeks, an administrator moved thepages. A few hours later, another user left a message on the talk page saying he disagreed with the move that had just been done, and now moved them back. I don't wish to move-war over this, and I'd like to see more support for this one way or the other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear. My proposal was to move Phylum to Phylum (disambiguation), and to then move Phylum (biology) to Phylum. However, on Talk:Phylum (biology), User:Encephalon proposed an even better idea, in my opinion; with only two articles, there is no need to disambiguate. Delete the current Phylum (disambiguation page); move Phylum (biology) here, and place a "for the use of phylum in lingusitics" message at the top of the biological Phylum article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as its moving Phylum (biology) to Phylum - but I can count your opinion as-is too. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: biological meaning is more common and having it as a primary disambiguation will simplify inline linking in the very large number of wikipedia articles in which it occurs. Jonathunder 06:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support having the biological meaning at phylum, with primary topic disambiguation. The biological meaning is overwhelmingly more common. "Language family" is more common term in linguistics. Gdr 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I think the biological meaning is primary. Does that mean I support the proposal or oppose? Put the question, please. Quintusdecimus

The term was introduced by Cuvier, and adopted in the 1871 (?) Paris convention. I'll look up the details. John Wilkins 09:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Confusion

The top of the article makes no sense. It seems to be some sort of list which perhaps should belong (formatted properly) in the rest of the article. 130.243.207.208 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We missed some vandalism, I am restoring it right now. KimvdLinde 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pentastomida

I removed the Pentastomida from this list; most experts consider them to be arthropods. Gdr 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see several other adjustments have been made (which is fine) but I think everybody should bear in mind that this is a contentious and rapidly changing area, so it may never be possible to produce a difinitive list all can agree on. [unsigned]

Vetulicolia

Does Vetulicolia belong on this list somewhere? Bob the Hamster 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's to be included it should be put under a separate heading - "Extinct Phyla" perhaps. I'm not sure it's worthwhile to include extinct phyla but I'm also not sure I can back that up with any solid reasoning.78.33.159.227 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of animal phyla

The first line of this table was garbled and the headings were missing. I have just fixed that. But now ... why are the "best known animal phyla", Mollusca, Porifera, Arthropoda, Chordata etc, NOT in the table? I assume that *cannot* be a mere oversight, and there must be some rationale for omitting them??? 86.6.13.17 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Frank

Thanks, but the stuff was more messed up than I thought, and the vandalism had been missed for over 2 weeks, which is extreme long at wikipedia. Thanks for trying to repair it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

List of plant phyla

I suggest the phyla (divisions) of algae are included: Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta/Heterokontophyta (I need to do some homework here!) Osborne 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Katie Don't?

The change from "Phylum" to "Division" by botanists also changes the handy way of remembering the taxonomic classifications used by students. Instead of Katie Please Come Over For Ginger Snaps I guess the botany students will be saying Katie Don't Come Over For Ginger Snaps. Not as easy to remember.Kdwillis 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Or as enjoyable for Katie. CFLeon 00:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tree of Phyla

Should this entry not aim to show the tree of phyla and the relationship between them - eg the close link beween chordates and echinoderms and the grouping of animal phyla into bilateral and radial groups? [unsigned]

clickable diagram

Does anyone know how to make clickable the parts of the diagram showing the different levels of taxa (phylum, kingdom, etc.)? I'd like to be able to click on 'species' as a link, and not be taken to a blowup of the whole diagram. Kaimiddleton 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bacteria and Archaea

Why are all bacterial and archaean phyla missing from the lists? These really need to be added. TimVickers 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest because nobody confident enough in their knowledge has been inclined to create lists for these. Trewornan (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

In addition to the above, there is a lot of scope for some discussion of the origin of phyla in this article; the coverage is sparse and was incorrect. The Budd reference is especially essential reading in terms of countering the populist (and IMO incorrect) Gouldian view pushed in Wonderful life. Verisimilus T 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

biological taxonomy

is there some actual defining term or word for biological taxonomy that is used commonly? I mean, as far as i can tell, there isn't even a wikipedia article dedicated to describing the whole system of classification used by biologists, botanists, etc. If there's some common term, it could be looked up easily in wikipedia. Maybe it's fine as a subtopic in a "taxonomy" article, I dunno. Any thoughts? Ormewood (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Images?

Some images would really liven up this article as well as give laymen some sense of perspective. Shinobu (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Phylum

How come the animals are all worms? Where are the phylums with dogs and sharks[?] I'm desperate here!Jamhaw (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)jamhaw

All of the vertebrates come under the phylum Chordata ExNihilo (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the plural is 'phyla'. CFLeon (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These are actually two very good questions and should be covered in the article more explicitly, the first is more difficult to answer succinctly but it should be possible to put in something basic without getting too tied up in stuff which isn't completely relevant.78.33.159.227 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

more phylum

i need to know more about phylum im doing a school project on phylum and im only in sixth grade give me more info but shorter words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.38.19 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The very first sentence disagrees with the diagram

This is the current version of the first sentence of this article:

In biological taxonomy, a phylum (plural: phyla) is a taxonomic rank at the level below Kingdom and above Class.

The diagram to the right hand side, however, has "phylum" above kingdom and below "class". Can someone please fix this? Kaimiddleton (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything is in the correct sequence, but this diagram runs from bottom to top instead of top to bottom. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is/are Oomycota in the fungal division section?

We are currently studying for the RHS Level 3 certificate in horticulture and have been taught about the Division Oomycota amongst the fungi. It is not included on this page - is it defunct, has our lecturer made a mistake or indeed are the RHS behind the times (easily true)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.93.209 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguably Oomycota are heterokonts rather than fungi (in the strict sense) which is why they're not included under the list of fungal divisions. In other words they're more closely related to algae than to fungi generally despite their fungal characteristics. Since nobody has as yet been inclined to add a list covering bacteria, algae, etc they are not mentioned. But check with your lecturer (and I'd appreciate it if you came back and corrected me if I'm wrong).78.33.159.227 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement

"In fact, a phylum is perhaps best described as a statement of taxonomic ignorance." A word is not a statement. Unfree (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Division

"'Phylum' is equivalent to the botanical term division." This statement seems to imply that "phylum" is not a botanical term, suggesting it is probably a zoological one, and that "division" is the proper term to use in botany in place of "phylum", in which case, why does "division" redirect here? It needs to be more explicit, and if "phylum" is enclosed in quotation marks, so should "division" be. Unfree (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph needs rewording

Good God, how did this even slip by peer review?

"Phylum is one of the major biological divisions called Taxa. Although "phylum" is often used as if it were a clearly defined term, no satisfactory definition of it exists. In fact, "phylum" may be a misnomer indicative of ignorance"

Stating confidently "Phylum is one of the major biological divisions..." then ending it with "phylum may be a misnomer indicative of ignorance" is just flat out going to confuse anyone who isn't familiar with biology. Especially when it's in the opening paragraph of the article.

Is it possible we can put criticism of the term in it's own section? I just can't imagine being able to put "no satisfactory definition" right after giving it's definition (and without any deeper details then unnamed authors can't reach a compromise) without expecting to leave readers wondering if the peer review system was a horrible idea.

We should also remember that while some written work is very thorough and may have no errors, these kinds of books and authors capable of writing them are very rare. It would be wiser instead of using unknown authors if we could find the most commonly accepted definition for Phylum, and use that as a template, then using authors we can name that disagree with the establishment come back and add why they take issue with the common definition.