Talk:Agnotozoa

Acceptance of Agnotozoa
I was looking for more information to add to this article and the only instances of Agnotozoa that I can find all seem to be wikipedia clones. I think this is odd for something as important as a subkingdom. Is this truly a scientifically accepted classification?Remuel 18:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)????


 * Good question. Agnotozoa doesn't seem to be widely used by biologists today.  A search for the name in Biological Abstracts turns up nothing.  The term does make a historical appearance, though, in the book Invertebrate Fossils by Moore, Lalicker, & Fisher, 1952.  A phylum-level classification on page 17 divides the animals into the subkingdoms Eozoa (protozoans) and Metazoa.  The latter is further divided into three "branches": Agnotozoa, Parazoa, and Eumetazoa.  Unlike the Wikipedia article, the Agnotozoa of Moore et al. includes only Mesozoa (Orthonectida & Rhombozoa) and makes no mention of Placozoa.


 * Although there is precedent for the taxon Agnotoza, there seems to be no compelling reason to regard it as a clade, or even a useful grade group. It may make the taxobox more tidy, but that's not reason enough to keep it in an encyclopedia article.  I suggest we remove the name from the Animal article, but retain the Agnotozoa article as an example of taxonomic history.
 * Cephal-odd 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was thinking. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Placozoan pictures

 * I'm going to add the picture from placozoa to the info box to make it more pretty.Werothegreat 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)