Talk:Pyrosome

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Marine life (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles Animals High‑importance Pyrosome is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

I think species list needs some updating. Will do it now. Gug01 (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pyrosome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216134956/http://www.mar-eco.no/mareco_news/2004/the_pyrosome_story to http://www.mar-eco.no/mareco_news/2004/the_pyrosome_story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our main image here for the past 9 years is an image labeled as a comb jelly, described as a salp when first added, and purporting to depict a pyrosome on many Wikimedia projects... and I'm not so sure it is one. Compare to all other pictures of pyrosomes (Google will return a lot more than Commons). To try to sort this out (I'm far from a marine biologist), I've left a message on the uploader's page on Commons here: commons:User_talk:Nhobgood#Combjelly.jpg. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that they can live on humans? 24.140.145.53 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an error in the opening graf regarding the size range of pyrosomes: 'Pyrosomes are cylindrical or cone-shaped colonies up to 18 m (60 ft) long, made up of hundreds to thousands of individuals, known as zooids. Colonies range in size from less than one centimeter to several metres in length...' The maximum colony size of pyrosomes is given first as '18 m' only to be contradicted in the very next sentence by a claim of 'several metres'. This needs to be squared as 18 is a good deal longer than several. RobotBoy66 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it contains contradictory information on the size of so-called colonies. 97.120.72.75 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with the type of content, wouldn't the page [1] be more adequate than [2] ? Japarthur (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Atlas Þə Biologist at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 6#Pyrosome taxonomy, according to WoRMS here, there are now three accepted genera in the family Pyrosomatidae, whereas the article currently treats the family as monotypic.

It's not clear to me what the English term pyrosome refers to: is the the genus or the expanded family? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think pyrosome applies to the whole family and order, and often refers to the colony. According to A global review of pyrosomes] the "subfamily divisions of the eight species of pyrosomes" were described in 1981. So this article should be for the family.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've update the article to treat the family and converted the species section to list subfamilies, genera and species. To avoid a circular redirect for Pyrosoma, I've changed the redirect to Pyrosoma atlanticum, the only species currently with a article. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882 I do want to say that there is multiple species of Pyrosoma so it shouldn’t be a redirect. Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not ideal but seems the most appropriate option until someone writes an article at Pyrosoma. The alternative is redirecting to the pyrosome article which creates double redirects. I'd have preferred to leave a redlink (to indicate a potential article) but the page already existed.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]