Talk:Berghia coerulescens

Misleading reference and unreferenced text used in versions of this article prior to March 13th, 2011
In previous versions up to this one, there were the following problems with the verification of the text:

The only reference used in those verisions was to a scientific paper published in PLoS ONE: The “Island Rule” and Deep-Sea Gastropods: Re-Examining the Evidence. This article deals with the Island Rule established for mammals and tries to validate that rule in a different group, gastropods: "'It has recently been suggested that an analogous pattern [to the Island Rule] holds for the colonisation of the deep-sea benthos by marine Gastropoda. In particular, a pioneering study showed that gastropods from the Western Atlantic showed the same graded trend from dwarfism to gigantism that is evident in island endemic mammals. However, subsequent to the publication of the gastropod study, the standard tests of the island rule have been shown to yield false positives at a very high rate, leaving the result open to doubt'."
 * Misleading reference

Then, I removed this reference from the article on B. coerulescens for the following reasons:
 * Not specific: in no place of the paper is there ANY reference to B. coerulescens. In fact, no species nor genus of the group Gastropoda is specified in the text or in the figures or their captions. The group Gastropoda is treated as a whole.
 * Topic not relevant: The scientific paper deals with the Island Rule, which has not even an indirect use in this article on B. coerulescens.
 * Inconsistent results: Even in what is dealing with, the scientific paper does not yield positive results ("However, subsequent to the publication of the gastropod study, the standard tests of the island rule have been shown to yield false positives at a very high rate, leaving the result open to doubt.")

All the text based on this invalid, misleading reference, was removed unless it could be properly verified.

The following claims were removed because they were unverified: Please, provide a valid biogeographic reference for this claim about the distribution of B. coerulescens. Please, provide a valid reference for the "not endangered" (or any other) state of B. coerulescens and also for the "short life cycle". Besides, "short" with respect to what? Other Berghia sp.? Human life? The age of the Universe?. It would be much sensible to just provide the length of their lives, if properly referenced.
 * Unverified claims temporarily removed
 * "Distribution of Berghia coerulescens is more frequent due to its habitual feeding of the pestly apistasia."
 * "As of now it is not in danger, but this species does have a relatively short life cycle."

I could not verify this claim, but given that as it can be seen in this Berghia classification, B. coerulescens is the first species identified within the genus Berghia, so it is very likely that it is also the type species for that genus. I included the text but put a "Citation needed" tag on it.
 * Claim included, though not properly verified
 * "Berghia coerulescens is the type species of the genus Berghia."

Pmronchi (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is in the table S1 in the reference. Thanks for two other notes. --Snek01 (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berghia coerulescens. 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/20110707075105/http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/anemonecare/a/aa100798_2.htm to http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/anemonecare/a/aa100798_2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)