Talk:Protostome
Animals Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams illustrating a cladogram, diagrams of cleavage etc... be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
Temporarily removed:
In both protostomes and deuterostomes, the embryo consists of a little ball of cells known as a blastula. Protostomes have their early cell divisions diagonal to the polar axis forming a spiral arrangement of cells; this is called spiral cleavage. A groups of cells move inward to form an opening called the blastophore, which in protostomes develops into the mouth.
Protostomes have a determinate cleavage: the fate of how each embryonic cell will turn out to be or function is typically fixed very early; the first four cells are separate and each will develop into a fixed quarter of the larva. If a cell is removed from the blastula, a limb might not form, for the other cells don't compensate. Protostomes are schizocoely, where the mesoderm splits and the split widens into a cavity that becomes the coelom.
This is because it doesn't seem accurate. Although many protostomes have spiral cleavage, it's not universal to the group, and in particular is rare among the Ecdysozoa. I'm not sure about the rest, but I thought it worth erring on the side of caution. Josh
I am curious to know what evidence there is for the assertion that it appears that the protostomes evolved from the deuterostomes, and that therefore protostomy is the derived condition. ???
You're correct, protostomes did not evolve from deuterostomes, I will remove this now.
Simplify
Just a sugestion but could you, perphaps change this page so that the rest of the world can understand it? Now I'm a reasonablly bright person, but this article is like reading a foreign language. I'm all for having accurate and informative pages, but the only person that could read this would be people with degrees in Biology, and people with degrees in Biology do not need to look this stuff up on Wikipedia. Its just a suggesstion but consider it. Antarticstargate 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)AntarticstargateAntarticstargate 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What about cnidarians?
I've looked under both protostome and deuterostome, and there is no mention of the cnidarians. Do they fit under either, or neither? They have a mouth, but some don't have an anus, so they can't be deuterostomes. Even so, what is it called when the blastopore becomes both the mouth and the anus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.91.137 (talk) 17:01:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Cnidarians are Acoelomates, they do not possess a coelom and thus are neither protostomes nor deuterostomes. Platyhelminthes are also Acoelomates so I am not sure they can be categorized as protostomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.2.167 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed section
I removed this section, it is not right:
subphylum of protostomes
- spincula
- echiura
- pogonophora
- pentastomida
- onychophora
- tardigrada
--Dj Capricorn (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
embryonic development
some diagrams on the embryonic development of protostomes vs. deuterostomes would be a nice addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.146.72 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. It is unclear what the alternative theories are. Picture = 1,000 words. And articles shouldn't be afraid to state the "obvious" general points (relating e.g to germ layers), even if they occur elsewhere - children read wikipedia looking for an introductory orientation to subjects; if they go away feeling they understand, they may, with luck, go on to spend a life studying the subject. They should be given a "good in" rather than put off with unclear explanations. Tsinfandel (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources
Please add sources in the appropriate sections:
Common to protostomes and deuterostomes
- See Kimberella and Cambrian explosion for some refs.
- See Evolving a Deuterostome for more.
- Detlev Arendt, Ulrich Technau & Joachim Wittbrodt (Jan 2001) Evolution of the bilaterian larval foregut; Nature 409, 81-85; doi:10.1038/35051075
- University of Leeds Evolutionary Developmental Biology Lecture 10
- Richard A. Kerr (Feb 1998) Pushing Back the Origins of Animals; Science Volume 279, Number 5352, pp. 803 - 804
- Francisco José Ayala, Andrey Rzhetsky, and Francisco J. Ayala Origin of the metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates; PNAS January 20, 1998 vol. 95 no. 2 606-611 - caution: mol phylo estimates vary widely
- Andrew H. Knoll & Sean B. Carroll Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology; Science 25 June 1999, Vol. 284. no. 5423, pp. 2129 - 2137 DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5423.2129
- Aguinaldo, Anna Marie A, Lake, James A Evolution of the multicellular animals American Zoologist, Dec 1998
- Guillaume Balavoine and André Adoutte One or Three Cambrian Radiations?; Science 17 April 1998: Vol. 280. no. 5362, pp. 397 - 398; DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5362.397
Evolution of protostomes
- Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution contains a nice summary and cites the peer-reviewed source.
Modern protostomes
-- Philcha (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
Why does the Protostome article refer to the group as a clade, but the Deuterostome article refers to it's group as a superphylum? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some sources say deuterostome is the original condition of bilaterians, and thus a paraphyletic group that includes protostome. --Philcha (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Protostome → Protostomia — Should be moved to the scientific name, more encyclopedic. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - protostome is a widely used common name for this clade. — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - How is that name more encyclopedic? You're just taking the current name and making it (the old, non "s" version of its) plural. Protostome and protostomes are the scientific names for it and are definitely more commonly used than protostomia. Also plurals in article titles are generally supposed to be avoided where possible. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Protostomia" would be intellectual snobbery. "Protosome" and its plural "protosomes" can be more precise than "protostomia", which has no grammatical number. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.