Talk:Urbilaterian
 | A fact from Urbilaterian appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,400 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Improvement suggestions edit
I suggest (as a german native speaker) that ur- is translated here not as "original" but as "the very first". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1715:4E2C:9531:A597:68BA:6634:754 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This article has scope for (1) copyediting so that it is easier to understand; (2) further expansion to address the arguments of Budd & Jensen (2000). If you can help with either, please do! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the major issue is not whether or not "acoelomorphs" (who might be paraphyletic) are bilaterians - they certainly are bilateral and triploblastic -, but if they are basal bilaterians. I know Bilateria was/is sometimes defined as protostomes + deuterostomes, but there doesn't seem to be an established definition of clade Bilateria, so whether acoels belong in it if they are basal is essentially a matter of taste.
A slightly less arcane issue: Protostomia and Deuterostomia are mixed up on the diagram. Naraoia (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)