Talk:Bioluminescence

Shouldn't we add bioluminescent plankton?
I think there should be a minimum info on wikipedia on the term bioluminescsnt plankton, as scientific researches are heavily growing in the genre. There may be some mistakes that i have added. I don' t care if my write up is kept or not, but can somebody add this topic in a proper way? (as my one is reverted)

Bioluminescent Plankton
Bioluminescent plankton are often found in various parts of the ocean, mostly in the surface waters mostly.

These planktons e.g. Dinoflagellates play a significant role in marine ecosystems. When a predator disturbs the water where these plankton are present, they emit light, creating a burst of luminous blue or green color. This sudden flash of light can startle predators and potentially reveal the presence of the predator to other larger creatures nearby.

Additionally, bioluminescent plankton can attract smaller organisms towards them. Many animals are drawn to the light, assuming it to be a potential source of food. This can lead to an interesting interplay of interactions in the ocean's food web.

Example of Bioluminescent Planktons

 * 1) Dinoflagellates
 * 2) Pyrocystis fusiformis
 * 3) Ctenophores

Tareksiddikitaki (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The dinoflagellates are not only already mentioned and cited in the article, they are also illustrated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Biofluorescence into Bioluminescence
Should be merged due to lack of independent importance. TRL (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Should not be merged as the two things are not the same in any way apart from the 'insects that glow' part.


 * I apologize for my lack of knowledge about how these talk pages and no doubt etitquette or good form here, I just am an average reader of wikipedia rather than an editor, and I have no idea on protocol re: these talk pages or how to discuss. But as a regular user I felt I had to contribute my thoughts here, and say that as a reader I don't really want two separate phenomena and very different things conflated and merged into a single article because some editor said so. Should there just be one page for 'insects' with billions of sub sections? Not everything needs to be clumped together surely? It seems to me that it would actually be more beneficial for the average person seeking knowledge to be able to read specific pages, separately with more specialization than just cramming somehow similar things together. What's the actual benefit to that anyway, and going from the specific to the general? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Thank you. 1.129.109.22 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. We would like to keep the page Biofluorescence separately from Bioluminescence at least for couple weeks till we get a Final grade for that assignment. Thank you for understanding! Biofluorescence and Bioluminescence are different processes and we address it in the text. Recently astonishing number of animals were discovered to be fluorescent but they don't posses bioluminescence, it's why nobody suspected they were biofluorescent in the first place! We have a link in the text to the Fluorescence page and to the Bioluminescence page. Again, Bioluminescence and Biofluorescence are different Nature phenomenons and each deserved to have its own wiki page. Thank you. 2601:2C1:200:D860:D90F:AF04:DCA6:C05D (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the Biofluorescence article is in a terrible state, but given that the phenomenon exists in the natural world and has attracted the notice of scientists, it is notable. The phenomenon is sharply distinct from Bioluminescence - light is produced only when the organism is illuminated, so a merger would be entirely inappropriate. If you think the topic is not notable, the appropriate forum is AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)