Talk:Leucochloridium paradoxum

Video addition?

I added links to a few YouTube videos of this critter in action, but they were automatically reverted by a 'bot. But I thought I read on[[1]] that YouTube videos were specifically okay if they met the other requirements. I'm not sure that I see how these don't, but this is a profession of ignorance on my part, not a defense. 67.43.240.55 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Certainly not this way aroung. If merged (which seems a good thing to do for the time being), merge species into genus. Redirects/merges genus -> species should be reserved for monotypic genera. Dysmorodrepanis 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Would love to see a photo of this parasite in its snail host, such as [2]. Richard001 05:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Upshift merge to genus?

Looking over Leucochloridium variae, it occurs to me that these organisms are similar enough to warrant a productive merge, possibly. But rather than just stuffing one article into the other, I think we could instead set up a new article for the genus, and merge both into that. The differences are too minor to really make a strong case for seperate pages. A genus page, on the other hand, would be much stronger, as it would combine the related information into a single clear article while still providing a nod to these two seperate species. The resulting increase in breadth of information would probably be enough to at least put this well on its way to getting over that "stub" hump. - Vianello (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The same information can be in Leucochloridium article. But every single species can and should be in its own article even if those articles will be short. It is my opinion only. I support my opinion with argument, that a species is one of the basic units of biological classification. So informations about single species in its own articles can not be unwillingly messed with informations about other ones. --Snek01 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. If we were to take that approach, however, it'd probably be better not to make the genus article at all, or possibly just to make a stub of it, since the information would be redundant. Conversely, we could leave in the species articles, but transfer the majority of their info to the genus article (and delete redundant information). Anyone else have thoughts on this? - Vianello (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vianello. It might be a good idea to keep the species pages up, but I think a great deal of the information in both articles could be presented on the genus page. As it stands, I don't think it has anything on it but a species list. Maybe you could keep some more specific information on the species page, and include some sort of overview on the genus page? - Caszerus (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording of motion

The article reads:

These broodsacs invade the snail's tentacles (preferring the left, when available), causing a brilliant transformation, of the tentacles, into a swollen, pulsating, colorful display that mimics the appearance of a caterpillar or grub. The broodsacs seem to pulsate in response to light intensity, and in total darkness do not pulse at all.

This description is not accurate; the broodsac does not actually emit light flashes. It needs to be explained better how this pulsing occurs and perhaps whether the broodsac is moving its entire body back and forth or anchoring one side and extending and shortening the other. Does it anchor itself in the snail or does it move freely? I looked around at some of the references and I don't think I can answer this authoritatively, thus this comment. -Rolypolyman (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green-banded broodsac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927030046/http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Schnecken/parasitismus/leucochloridium.html to http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Schnecken/parasitismus/leucochloridium.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)