Talk:Mollusc shell

Reason for beauty

Evolutionary purpose? Obviously they protect the mollusc, but why are some of them beautiful? It doesn't seem like good camoflage and they aren't a display like Peacocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.54.56 (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Large article, no discussion?

This article seems quite large for one with NO discussion over the body. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that can allow for opinion or incorrect information. I noticed the article is mostly edited by a small amount of people making large contributions along with material that is not written like an encyclopedia or seems copied from elsewhere. Andrew Colvin (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1007/BF00353265 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mollusc shell. 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/20100711074008/http://www.palaeos.com:80/Invertebrates/Molluscs/BasalMollusca/Conchifera/Helcionelloida.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Molluscs/BasalMollusca/Conchifera/Helcionelloida.html#exo-endo

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 13:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Shell nucleation - verifying information and noting apparent plagiarism

In the Formation section, there's a line:

Nucleation is endoepithelial in Neopilina and Nautilus, but exoepithelial in the bivalves and gastropods.

attributed to Scheltema & Schander (2010, in press), apparently published in Acta Zoologica. I have been unable to locate that particular reference, nor a specific source from those two authors supporting the statement. I did find that exact sentence, though, in the book Principles of Systematic Zoology by Rudy Willis (an author who I have also not been able to find any background on-- a professor? a zoologist? seemingly not a malacologist but that could be incorrect) on page 266. However, that section of the book itself seems to be plagiarizing this exact Wikipedia page. My reasoning for that is that the edits done in the Formation section of this page are older than the book itself, which was originally published in 2019. Also, significant sections of the adjacent chapter are taken verbatim from this page. For example, this is a link to a version of this page from 2017, two years before the aforementioned zoology book went to press, and this is a link to a page in the book with multiple lines blatantly taken from this page. So there are two potential issues: (1) Where does this statement about nucleation come from? How do we correctly cite its source? (I suspect it to be true but that's based in anecdotal evidence not actual sources) and (2) Who plagiarized whom and what's the remedy for the whole situation? Not really sure how to address this, other than continuing to parse through the literature for solid, verifiable references. -Procyonidae (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)