 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
is it a worm?
editDespite the common name, tongue worms are actually highly modified crustacean arthropods closely related to barnacles and copepods, not worms I argue that it is a worm, since worm is not a taxon, just a description. anything with a flat body that eats you can be called a worm. flatworm, roundworm etc are not even closely related but they are referred to as just "worms" in various contexts. also, the crustacean ancestry is not proven. —Soap— 20:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please be aware that what you're proposing is original research and synthesis, especially since your proposal contradicts the sources given.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there are two issues here.
- What is meant by "worm"? Chapter 4 of Barnes et al. (2001), The Invertebrates: a Synthesis, is called "The Worms". It says "these 14 groups of worms are simply animals which have retained the general vermiform shape of their ancestors more or less unchanged, having bodies some 2–3 to over 15,000 times longer than wide and flattened or rounded in section".[1] So there are sources that use "worms" as a description, but even so, Barnes et al. only include 14 particular groups, and explicitly exclude tongue-worms.
- Are tongue-worms crustaceans? More recent papers than those in the article Pentastomida (e.g. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06656-4) do continue to support the Pentastomida–Branchiura clade, so I think it's pretty certain that they are (fairly basal) members of Pancrustacea.
- Peter coxhead (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there are two issues here.
References
- ^ Barnes, R.S.K.; Calow, P.; Olive, P.J.W.; Golding, D.W.; Spicer, J.I. (2001), The Invertebrates: a Synthesis (3rd ed.), Wiley-Blackwell, p. 80, ISBN 978-0-632-04761-1
{{citation}}: Unknown parameter|lastauthoramp=ignored (|name-list-style=suggested) (help)
OK thank you for the prompt replies. I won't change anything. I think I can make a case for calling them worms in the vernacular sense, and that is what we link to with worm ... note the mention of amphibians, lizards, and maggots in the lede of the worm article. But I get that even a casual reader should understand that, given the context, the scientific definition is intended here, and that excludes anything in Pancrustacea.
I don't understand the logistics involved in placing fossils in taxonomy. If we assume this classification is correct, it tells us a lot about the evolutionary history of tongue worms .... they apparently started out by feeding on fellow crustaceans from the outside, and later evolved to a diet of blood and wound up entirely inside other animals, and today those animals they choose live mostly on land. Very strange. One thing, though. The body of the parasite we have as an illustration today doesn't look very wormlike. Is this the fossil we found? Is it possible that it was a larva? I haven't had a chance to check out the study linked from the page because I only have intermittent access to a PC, but I will when I can if nobody else does. I want to have as much information as possible in this article. —Soap— 02:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- The fossil specimens are thought to be those of adults because they physically resemble adult tongueworms.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I thought the green half-moon-shaped animal was the parasite, not the long thin thing. I appreciate the work you put into drawing that picture, but I think I'm probably not the only one who'd make that mistake, since the green ostracod is the most visually prominent foreground object and it's easy to assume that the large animal in the background is the host of the parasite. Clearer labeling would be helpful. —Soap— 02:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps cropping it closer to the parasite?-03:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Apokryltaros:Its been three years and at the time I had mobile-only Internet access so I may not have realized you were the same person who created the image. I still think more people than me have made this mistake ... would you be willing to upload a cropped version of the image without the third animal? Even better, do you have a higher resolution version to share? Thank you, —Soap— 00:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- How about now?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, ...that is much better. That is a very well made drawing. —Soap— 00:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- How about now?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Apokryltaros:Its been three years and at the time I had mobile-only Internet access so I may not have realized you were the same person who created the image. I still think more people than me have made this mistake ... would you be willing to upload a cropped version of the image without the third animal? Even better, do you have a higher resolution version to share? Thank you, —Soap— 00:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps cropping it closer to the parasite?-03:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I thought the green half-moon-shaped animal was the parasite, not the long thin thing. I appreciate the work you put into drawing that picture, but I think I'm probably not the only one who'd make that mistake, since the green ostracod is the most visually prominent foreground object and it's easy to assume that the large animal in the background is the host of the parasite. Clearer labeling would be helpful. —Soap— 02:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)