Talk:Rotifer

Organization of rotifers

I just created the stub article Digononta to fill a gap, but the article Bdelloid references a difference classification than the one I used, and Seison uses a third scheme. Before I start mucking around with these articles, I thought I would see if smoeone who knows more than I do about this could opine on how to bring some consistency to the subject. -- Donald Albury 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Expansion still to do

• History & Taxonomy
  • Current taxonomy
  • Why Cuvier is listed as the authority for the phyllum
  • Some sources list Harris, others list Leewenhoek as the initial discovery, clarify.
  • Evolutionary history and phylogeny
  • Add cladogram

Neil916 (Talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • And role in ecosystem! --195.50.200.37 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Regarding whether it was either Harris or Leeuwenhoek who first described rotifers (as noted above there's a mix of these attributions online): To summarise the refs. below, Leeuwenhoek's observations in 1687 predate Harris's of 1696, but rotifers may have been described as early as 1674 by Leeuwenhoek.David1956 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The citations of first description to Harris may first originate (including ref. 1 in Wiki entry) from C T Hudson and P H Gosse. 'The Rotifera', Vol. I, p.15 (available on www.archive.org) who cite John Harris as providing the 'earliest notice' of rotifers in his letter dated 1696 published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. But Hudson and Gosse may not have been aware of Antony van Leeuwenhoek's letter dated 17th October 1687 sent to the Royal Society but which was not translated and published in the Philosophical Transactions. This letter was translated and published in 1964 in Volume VII of the 'Collected Letters of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek'. http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/saveas.php?filename=leeu027alle07_01.pdf&dir=leeu027alle07_01&type=pdf Link to freely available copy on the DBNL website.

On page 95ff of the 'Collected Letters' (page 134 of above pdf), Leeuwenhoek describes the features of a rotifer in this letter as noted by the translators in their footnote 15, quote 'L. here observes rotifers (Rotatoria)'. Where they also cite Clifford Dobell, 'Antony van Leeuwenhook and his "Little Animals"', 1932, p.110. Dobell notes that a description of some 'little animalcules' described in Leeuwenhoek's letter dated September 7th 1674 may refer to 'Probably Rotifers—seen under a low magnification.'

Also see Brian J Ford in 'The Rotifera of Antony van Leeuwenhoek’, Quekett Journal of Microscopy, 1982, vol. 34, 362-373 who discusses the letter timeline and cites Dobell. Ford found an algal mat sample enclosed by Leeuwenhoek in his letter to the Royal Society dated 17th October 1687 and photographed bdelloid rotifers in a rejuvenated sample although not alive. See Brian J ford 'The Leeuwenhoek Legacy', 1991. This provides further evidence that there were rotifers in the samples Leeuwenhoek described.

I'm not familiar with article editing / style to amend text based on these references, if anyone wishes to. Perhaps may merit a note at article base.

Plural Spelling?

How is the plural of Rotifer spelled? I see it spelled in the text as rotifers, rotifaers, and rotifiers. I just thought maybe there was a specific single spelling that is correct. Zibem (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "rotifers"; the article is now correct in this respect. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I have updated the taxonomy (via the automatic taxonomy templates "Template:Taxonomy/taxon") to that in Barnes, R.S.K.; Calow, P.; Olive, P.J.W.; Golding, D.W.; Spicer, J.I. (2001), The Invertebrates: a synthesis, Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 978-0-632-04761-1 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), p. 98. This is the last Linnaean classification I can find. The more recent classifications are cladistic, placing Rotifera (reduced to 2 classes), Acanthocephala and Seisonida into one clade, Syndermata, but without consistent Linnaean ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Distinctive Features

Talk:Rotifer “The most distinctive feature of rotifers is the presence of a ciliated structure, called the corona, on the head. In the more primitive species, this forms a simple ring of cilia around the mouth from which an additional band of cilia stretches over the back of the head. In the great majority of rotifers, however, this has evolved into a more complex structure.”

This is incorrect. In the rotifer genus Cupelopagis, the corona is NOT ciliated. Males of most rotifers have reduced corona. The most significant feature of rotifers is the presence of mastax in females.

Therefore, I suggest to modify the above lines as: “The two most distinctive features of rotifers (in females of all species) are the presence of corona on the head, a structure generally ciliated and presence of mastax. In the more primitive species, corona forms a simple ring of cilia around the mouth from which an additional band of cilia stretches over the back of the head.”

S.S.S. Sarma (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.S.S. Sarma (talk • contribs)

Link "frozen for 24,000 years in the Siberian permafrost.[7]"

Link leads to NYT ! Original link should be to: Lyubov Shmakova, Stas Malavin, Nataliia Iakovenko, Tatiana Vishnivetskaya, Daniel Shain: A living bdelloid rotifer from 24,000-year-old Arctic permafrost. In: Current Biology. Band 31, Nr. 11, Juni 2021, ISSN 0960-9822, S. R712–R713, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.077. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:6020:B016:7001:A0FC:8A06:A1CB:25F7 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Extensive Uncited Quoting

While looking for more information on a species that is mentioned in this article, I found that the second paragraph of the first section, "Some rotifers are free swiming ... clade called Snydermata." is largely taken word for word from: Parker, W. M. &. B. (2019). Aquatic Inverteberate Cell Culture. pg. 135-6. United Kingdom: EDTECH.

While I don't have access to pg 135, I can see that at least the section of the paragraph "Most species of the rotifers ... are actually species complexes." on pg 136, starting on pg 135.

As I'm a bit newer to Wikipedia editing, I'm not entirely familiar with how much of a work can be directly quoted. This passage is certainly not attributed with a citation or indicated to be a quote, but I'm not sure if it's reportable as potential plagiarism and if so, what the mechanisms are for reporting it, so I'm mentioning it here. Have a great day! NauticalFox (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The passage in question does have a citation, midway in the paragraph. It is not word-for-word, but a paraphrase. Close paraphrasing is forbidden, and I think that passage is too close to the original, but opinions may vary, and I will wait to see what others have to say. The best move will be to rewrite the passage to move it further away from the source. The question remains as to whether the old version will need to be reversion deleted to remove it from the edit history. Donald Albury 14:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This text first starts to appear in this article in 2008 here and is later expanded. This suggests that Parker W M & B may have been over studious readers of Wikipedia. However the ref in the third sentence of the lede is referenced to an archive of Freshwaterlife.org from 2012 which is still later than the Wikipedia version. Unless there is an earlier version that pre-dates the Wikipedia text, I would suggest that all is well with the world.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for doing the research. This is going to be more and more of a problem as time goes on. I have tripped over several such citogenesis cases in recent years. Donald Albury 23:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)