Talk:Bryozoa

Picture
Can we get a picture of a living one? -FZ 01:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I just tried to post a video of a live one, but it got denied because of the nazi mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy help request
Could we have a taxobox on this? I'd do it myself if I knew the slightest thing about the topic. Soo 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nervous System
I understand that bryozoa have a simple nervous system. Can somebody include brief information on it? Jyoshimi 00:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can Bryozoa fresh water types grow in golf course irrigation systems
I have been told that our irrigation system on our golf course has the Bryozoa organism growing in it and they are flushing it with some type of fungicide. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.125.239 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ectoprocta into Bryozoa
I propose that Ectoprocta simply be made a redirect to Bryozoa. The terms are generally synonymous today, and the Bryozoa article already includes a paragraph describing Endoprocts and their former placement within Bryozoa. This isn't really a question of which term is better, but whether it is better to have one article or two. Kingdon 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now done this. Kingdon 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources & notes
Hopefully useful for getting this to GA --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

General

 * The Phylum Ectoprocta (Bryozoa) - very probably not WP:RS, but useful checklist of points, incl. specialisation.
 * What is a Bryozoan? - nice dgms
 * Bryozoans - excellent dgm of encrusting species, get Graphics Lab on this.
 * The Fossil Book - how to distinguish from corals; dgm of fossil; hard parts not exposed
 * The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen; 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology, 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685)
 * The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen; 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology, 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685)

Classification

 * ITIS Standard Report Page: Ectoprocta - the "official" name

Feeding

 * A Model of Particle Capture by Bryozoans in Turbulent Flow: Significance of Colony Form (Eckman & Okamura; Am Nat 1998. Vol. 152, pp. 861–880; DOI: 10.1086/286214) - effects of zooid spacing & waterflow on feeding.
 * Living where the flow is right: How flow affects feeding in bryozoans - effect of flow rate; invasive
 * Effect of Zooid Spacing on Bryozoan Feeding Success: Is Competition or Facilitation More Important? (Pratt; 2004; Biol. Bull. 207: 17–27) - also at JSTOR and Bio Bull
 * Versatile ciliary behaviour in capture of particles by the bryozoan cyphonautes larva (Strathmann; 2006; Acta Zoologica)

Reproduction & life cycle

 * Paradoxical polyembryony? Embryonic cloning in an ancient order of marine bryozoans (Hughes et al; 2005; Biol. Lett.; 1, 178–180; doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0259)

Ecology

 * Living where the flow is right: How flow affects feeding in bryozoans - effect of flow rate; invasive
 * Heavy Predation on Freshwater Bryozoans by the Golden Apple Snail, Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck, 1822 (Ampullariidae)
 * Molecular data implicate bryozoans as hosts for PKX (Phylum Myxozoa) and identify a clade of bryozoan parasites within the Myxozoa (Anderson, C. L., Canning, E. U., Okamura, B.;)
 * Symbiotic relationships between hydroids and bryozoans (Puce et al; International Symbiosis Society Congress, 2007)
 * Global diversity of bryozoans (Bryozoa or Ectoprocta) in freshwater (Massard & Geimer; 2008; Hydrobiologia) - updated at Global diversity of bryozoans (Bryozoa or Ectoprocta) in freshwater: an update (Massard & Geimer; 2008; Bull. Soc. Nat. luxemb.)
 * Infection of bryozoans by Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae at sites endemic for salmonid proliferative kidney disease (Tops & Okamura; Diseases of aquatic organisms; 2003)
 * Versatile ciliary behaviour in capture of particles by the bryozoan cyphonautes larva (Strathmann; 2006; Acta Zoologica)

And humans

 * Professional photosensitive eczema of fishermen by contact with bryozoans: disabling occupational dermatosis
 * Applied palaeontology by Robert Wynn Jones, pub. : "Dogger bank itch", possibly due to chemical defences (p. 116) --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Marine Life of the Pacific and Indian Oceans - rapid colonisers->they foul boats, etc.
 * Bryozoans as southern sentinels of ocean acidification: a major role for a minor phylum (Smith; 2009; Marine and Freshwater Research 60(5) 475–482; DOI: 10.1071/MF08321) - measuring "the next global challenge: ocean acidification"
 * I've seen hints of medicinal uses.
 * Infection of bryozoans by Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae at sites endemic for salmonid proliferative kidney disease (Tops & Okamura; Diseases of aquatic organisms; 2003) - serious for salmon fisheries & farms

Fossil record

 * The oldest Bryozoans: new evidence from the Late Tremadocian (early Ordovician) of East Yangtze Gorges in China (Journal of Paleontology, Nov 2007; Xia et al; main url)
 * Horizon of the oldest known bryozoans (Ordovician) (Zhang & same Chinese team; Palaeoworld Volume 18, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 67-73)
 * The role of bryozoans in fossil reefs—an example from the Middle Devonian of the Western Sahara - early colonisers, stabilise surfaces
 * Coexistence of symbiotic hydroids (Protulophila) on serpulids and bryozoans in a cryptic habitat at Chrtníky (lower Turonian, Czech Republic) (Zágoršek et al; 2009; Bulletin of Geosciences 84(X), xx–xx; Czech Geological Survey, Prague; ISSN 1214-1119)
 * Bryozoan mud-mounds from the Upper Ordovician Jifarah (dDjeffara) Formation of Tripolitania, north-west Libya (Buttler et al; 2007;Palaeontology)
 * Bryozoan studies 2001 (ch "Deconstructing bryozoans ..", pp 93ff; Dewel et al; 2002) - nice statement of phylo problems; "highly derived"; poss explanation of why late in fossil record
 * Paleozoic Bryozoa from Severnaya Zemlya (Russian Arctic) (Nekhorosheva; 2002; Geodiversitas) - mid-Ordov Russian bryozoa
 * Monophyly of brachiopods and phoronids: reconciliation of molecular evidence with Linnaean classification (the subphylum Phoroniformea nov.) (Cohen; 2000; Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 225-231) - "This inference [lophotrochozoa hypothesis], if true, undermines virtually all morphology-based reconstructions of phylogeny made during the past century or more."
 * Devonian Bryozoan Diversity, Extinctions, and Originations (Horowitz et al; 1996; Journal of Paleontology) - anything more recent?

Phylogeny

 * 18S rRNA suggests that Entoprocta are protostomes, unrelated to Ectoprocta (Mackey et al, 1996; Journal of Molecular Evolution; doi: 10.1007/BF02352285)
 * Evidence from Hox genes that bryozoans are lophotrochozoans (Passamaneck and Halanych; 2004; Evolution & Development, 6:4, 275–281 )
 * Lophotrochozoan phylogeny assessed with LSU and SSU data: Evidence of lophophorate polyphyly (Passamaneck and Halanych; July 2006; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 20-28)
 * Spiralian Phylogenomics Supports the Resurrection of Bryozoa Comprising Ectoprocta and Entoprocta (Hausdorf et al; 2007; Molecular Biology and Evolution; 24(12):2723-2729; doi:10.1093/molbev/msm214)
 * The higher phylogeny of Phylactolaemate bryozoans inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences (Wood & Lore; Bryozoan Studies, 2004)
 * The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen, 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685 ) - agin Lophophorata on morphological grounds
 * Defining phyla: morphological and molecular clues to metazoan evolution (Nielsen; 2003; Evolution & Development)
 * Phylogenomic analyses of lophophorates (brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans) confirm the Lophotrochozoa concept (Helmkampf et al; 2008; Proc. R. Soc. B)
 * The first comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Bryozoa (Ectoprocta) based on combined analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial genes (Fuchs et al; 2009; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
 * First molecular estimate of cyclostome bryozoan phylogeny confirms extensive homoplasy among skeletal characters used in traditional taxonomy (Waeschenbach; July 2009!; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
 * Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater bryozoans (Ectoprocta, Phylactolaemata) inferred from mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences (Okuyama et al;2006; Zoologica Scripta)
 * Summarizing discussion looks like a ch of a book, poss conf proceedingsl latest cited works are 2007 - useful if can pin down.
 * The new view of animal phylogeny (Halanych; 2004; Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.) - good on hist of theories
 * Multigene analysis of lophophorate and chaetognath phylogenetic relationships (Helmkampf et al; 2008; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
 * Bryozoan studies 2001 (ch "Deconstructing bryozoans ..", pp 93ff; Dewel et al; 2002) - nice statement of phylo problems; "highly derived"
 * Convergence in the Feeding Apparatuses of Lophophorates and Pterobranch Hemichordates Revealed by 18S rDNA: An Interpretation (Halanych; 2006; The Biological Bulletin) - Pterobranch's "lophophores" aren't
 * Lophotrochozoan mitochondrial genomes (Vallès & Boore; 2006; Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 46, Number 4, pp. 544-557) - good descr of phylo history --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * Bryozoa -Moss or lace animals the best I saw in Google images
 * Bryozoa --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
"[edit] Interaction with humans Bryozoa Bryozoa generally do not interact with humans as something of a rule. This is due to a longstanding feud with humans after an incident in 1922 when a colony of Bryozoa were involved in a scuffle with an unknown man over a disagreement regarding coleslaw. Charles McRogersonstone - a member of the colony - was quoted after the incident as saying It was truly awful. I had no idea that soggy carrot could inflict such damage. "

Removing this bullshit because it reeks of vandailsm to me. Sorry for my non wikipedian style of informing you of this, I'm new to the concept of spreading knowledge in a positive manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Ectoprocta
moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Rationale:
 * The contents of "Bryozoa" have fluctuated ever since the discovery of the Entoprocta (another phylum with a similar feeding structure) in the mid-19th cent, and the debate continues. So "Bryozoa" is ambiguous,as it could refer to Ectoprocta+Entoprocta or to Ectoprocta alone.
 * Nevertheless "Bryozoa" has been synonymous with "Ectoprocta" in most literature since 1869, both neoontological and paleontological, including 101-level textbooks. Thus readers will generally be more familiar with "Bryozoa" than with "Ectoprocta" (or "Entoprocta", which seems to have received even less study). The scope for confusing readers is huge.
 * Since the debate continues, the safest course is to use the unambiguous although confusingly similar "Ectoprocta" and "Entoprocta" for the main articles. This is in line with ITIS, which treats "Ectoprocta" as the valid name and "Bryozoa" as "invalid - junior synonym"
 * Simply redirecting Bryozoa to Ectoprocta would be misleading, as it would not warn readers of the potential for confusion. Hence I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a "health warning" for readers.
 * Bryozoa can then be modified in either direction if the debate is actually resolved and ITIS concurs. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per ratioale. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa vs. Ectoprocta
(I posted this on the "move" discussion page. I'm not sure it will be seen there, so I've repeated it here.)

This move catches me by surprise. I should have been reading the discussions. Are the editors here aware that taxonomic priority rules are not relevant to phyla? Here is a very recent quotation on the issue by bryozoologists --


 * Other phylum names that have been used for the Bryozoa are Polyzoa and Ectoprocta. Polyzoa (Greek for ‘many animals’, referring to their colonies of a few to millions of individuals) was once commonly used for the phylum in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. English naturalist J. V. Thompson invented the name in 1830, a year earlier than German scientist Gottfried Ehrenberg introduced Bryozoa, but rules of priority do not apply to higher taxa. Majority usage of the name Bryozoa in Europe and America, plus the birth of the International Bryozoology Association in Stockholm in 1965, have fixed Bryozoa as the ‘official’ phylum name among bryozoologists. (Gordon, Taylor and Bigey, 2009; New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity, Volume One: Kingdom Animalia, p. 271)

I work on fossil bryozoans and can assure you that in universities, museums and research labs around the world "Bryozoa" is the accepted phylum name. This move to "Ectoprocta" seems to me to confuse the public, especially students using Wikipedia as a resource. Wilson44691 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I got into zoology articles via my interest in paleontology (arm-chair), so I sympathise. However as a paleontologist you're mainly dealing hard parts, and there are no known mineralised entoprocta, so for paleontologists "Bryozoa" can only mean Ectoprocta. Neontologists face a more complicated situation. The main problems with "Bryozoa" are whether the term includes Entoprocta - an old idea but resurrected by a molecular phylogeny study in 2009. I prefer "Ectoprocta" for now rto denote the critters with cystids and polypides - if mol phylo supports "Bryozoa = Ectoprocta + Entoprocta" 5 years from now, then Bryozoa can be developed to support the combination; if not, we can always redirect Bryozoa to Ectoprocta. --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The rules are the same for paleontologists and neontologists when it comes to taxonomy and systematics, and our standards are the same. I'm as much a zoologist as a paleontologist when it comes to some groups, including bryozoans.  There are no separate naming conventions for paleontologists and neontologists.  I belong to the International Bryozoology Association, for example, virtually all the members of which (if not all of them) consider "Phylum Bryozoa" to be the proper  and "official" name (as in the quotation above).  (There are fossil entoprocts, by the way.)  Here are the relevant sections from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature):


 * 23.2. Purpose. In accordance with the objects of the Code (see Preamble), the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and it is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning by the introduction of a name that is its senior synonym or homonym (for certain such cases see Article 23.9), or through an action taken following the discovery of a prior and hitherto unrecognized nomenclatural act (such as a prior type fixation; for such cases see Articles 70.2 and 75.6).


 * 23.3. Application to Synonymy. The Principle of Priority requires that a taxon formed by bringing together into a single taxon at one rank two or more previously established nominal taxa within the family group, genus group or species group takes as its valid name the name determined in accordance with the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.1] and its Purpose [Art. 23.2], with change of suffix if required in the case of a family-group name [Art. 34]. (Boldface is mine.)


 * It is simply incorrect by taxonomic principles and the overwhelming conventions of invertebrate biologists to subordinate "Bryozoa" to Ectoprocta". I suggest the move be reversed and the bryozoan page be returned to its proper title.  I request this with respect knowing how much good work you have put into this article, but the group is the Phylum Bryozoa and the article should be titled appropriately.  Wilson44691 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that, although the main article was moved as per the proposal above, the second part of the proposal -- that "I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a 'health warning' for readers" -- has not been done; instead, Bryozoa is a disambiguation page that is likely to leave most readers extremely confused, since it doesn't indicate which group is commonly known as "Bryozoa." Furthermore, there are some 300 articles that contain links to Bryozoa that now need to be reviewed individually to determine which group they meant to refer to (and I suspect that, in a large percentage of cases, this will be almost impossible to ascertain).  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked around before proposing the move and found the situation is messy and currently looks unstable. While many authors use "Bryozoa" to mean ectoprocts, others add an explanatory "(Ectoprocta)" after "Bryozoa" and some recent analyses group ectoprocts and entoprocts under "Bryozoa". In addition some authors prefer "Kamptozoa" to "Entoprocta", presumably to avoid confusion with "Entoprocta". Some examples:
 * Many sources use "Bryozoa (Ectoprocta)" or ""Bryozoa (Ectoprocta, Polyzoa)", e.g. The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality, p. 217, The first comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Bryozoa (Ectoprocta) based on combined analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial genes (2009)
 * Some use "Ectoprocta" as the primary name, e.g. Monophly of brachiopods and phoronids (2000)
 * Martin Helmkampf, Iris Bruchhaus and Bernhard Hausdorf conclude that Bryozoa = Ectoprocta + Entoprocta, see Spiralian Phylogenomics Supports the Resurrection of Bryozoa Comprising Ectoprocta and Entoprocta (2007) and Phylogenomic analyses of lophophorates (brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans) confirm the Lophotrochozoa concept (2008), using molecular phylogeny. Claus Nielsen produces the same conclusion on morphological grounds at The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (2002).
 * There was a debate, mainly in Systematic Zoology]], in the late 1960s and early 1970s - summarised with citations at [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2412681 On Changing the Names of Higher Taxa (1977), about proposals to make "Ectoprocta" the name of the critters with cyctids and polypides, on the grounds that "Bryozoa" is ambiguous.
 * The ITIS entry for "Bryozoa" says "invalid - junior synonym" and that the valid name is "Ectoprocta".
 * In addition authors that prefer "Kamptozoa" to "Entoprocta" include, and all writings by Kerstin Wasson, who appears to be the most prolific researcher on this phylum (see citations at Entoprocta).
 * I have not yet made the article Bryozoa an explanation of the difficulties because the move of Bryozoa to Ectoprocta was done yesterday and Wilson44691 immediately expressed concerns. When we reach a consensus, I can easily make Bryozoa "a 'health warning' for readers" based on material currently in Ectoprocta.
 * Depending on the conclusion, I agree that linked articles may have to be changed. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This item should be removed from consideration here: 'The ITIS entry for "Bryozoa" says "invalid - junior synonym" and that the valid name is "Ectoprocta".' ITIS is simply wrong according to the ICZN as cited above.  Priority is not an issue for the names of phyla.  As for the "instability", such is the nature of scientific research and discourse, especially in systematics.  It is crucial that we use a taxonomic language which is consistent and universal -- this is what the ICZN is all about, and it has a long history.  "Phylum Bryozoa" is the name accepted by those who study these remarkable animals.  This, like anything else in science, may change in the future, but right now the consensus is for "Bryozoa".  Wikipedia should reflect that consensus, especially in the title of the article.  The issue can be discussed in the article, of course, but the proper title is critical.  Please start the process for reversing this move. Wilson44691 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've undone the previous move as it seems to be contentious and was aparantly only supported by one editor. If the current discussion is resolved and consensus forms to rename the article that can be done. Vsmith (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture
if a video would be of interest... http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2009/07/01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKEdwards (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

cephalods??
Is the redlink in the article supposed to be cephalopods? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. I fixed it and also added "modern". Wilson44691 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What classes?
The intro says "Some colonies of classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids". What does classes mean in this context? In some classes there are species where many individuals form colonies where ...; In some colonies (namely the colonies of particular species) each individual belongs to one of several classes. There are differences in form an function between individuals of different classes. OR ... --Ettrig (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, thanks for pointing that out! Is "Colonies of some classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids,..." better? --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This implies that division into types is the same for all species in the class, for all classes. Is this true? --Ettrig (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the answer may be in the main text, complete with refs - the phrase you rightly questioned was in the lead, which is a ( ? light-weight ?) summary. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, it seems I must keep reading. Pterobranchs ==> Pterobranches ? This word is linked to a redirect page. Change link to Pterobranchia? --Ettrig (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Pterobranchs" is correct and is the name for the actual animals. "Pterobranchia" is the name of the classification. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments
After the Cheilostomata are introduced in the lead, the following sentences refer to all bryozoa, not just the Cheilostomata, right? I think that could be made clearer&mdash;for instance, "A few bryozoan species can creep..." &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "Autozooids supply nutrients to non-feeding zooids by channels that vary between classes" signals the switch from one class (Cheilostomata) to all classes. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, now that you mention it, but I think it needs to be signaled one sentence earlier, as I'd say the reader could easily think that only Cheilostomata species can creep. (Or is that true?) I'll reply to your comments below later. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "legs" are a specific application of "vibracula" zooids, peculiar to Cheilostomata, which has the largest repertoire of zooids. --Philcha (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. I think the sentence in the lead about creeping (if it belongs in the lead at all) should say that it's pecular to Cheilostomata. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, the paragraph about the Entoprocta is relatively uninteresting, and it could go at the end, unless there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused. In general I like to see these naming issues addressed at the end. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused: the term "bryozoa" has a slim majority over "ectoprocta", but not be much, and many sources play safe by using mentioning both terms in their introductions; and some sources have revived the older idea that "bryozoa" includes both ectoprocts and entoprocts :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd suggest mentioning in that paragraph in the lead that the old idea has been revived, maybe with "In the taxonomy followed here, though..." &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Both morphological and molecular phylogeny analyses disagree over..." This means morphological analyses disagree with each other and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree with each other, right? If so, I'm not sure the "both" is enough to keep readers from thinking that morphology is on one side and molecular phylogeny on the other, as I thought at first. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I saw "Both ..." I expect a statement that applies to both approaches. I suggest the alternative would be e.g. "morphological analyses indicate that ..., while molecular phylogeny analyses ...." However, if you can suggest wording you find less ambiguous but clear and concise, I'd be interested. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree that "both", as in the present article, means the statement applies to both approaches, so "Both A and B disagree" means "A disagrees and so does B".  If you mean that morphological analyses indicate one thing and molecular-phylogeny analyses indicate something different, I'd suggest "Morphological analyses disagree with molecular-phylogeny analyses about bryozoans' relationships with entoprocts," etc.  Another possibility is "Morphological analyses and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree..." but I think my first suggestion is clearer. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar of a sentence
The article currently has the sentence, 'The more recently discovered group were given the name Entoprocta, while the original "Bryozoa" called "Ectoprocta".'

This is not grammatical&mdash;there are no "while" clauses without complete verbs. ("Called" here is a past participle, as you don't mean that the original Bryozoa called the Ectoprocta.) If you don't see it, you might ask someone else. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They're surprisingly advanced, but too modest to claim credit for the telephone :-)
 * Oops! Fixed. --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryozoa. 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 tag to http://www.marinebiotech.org/bryostatin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325233234/http://www.wooster.edu/geology/Taylor%26Wilson2003.pdf to http://www3.wooster.edu/geology/taylor%26Wilson2003.pdf

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) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bryozoa. 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/20141015183508/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015183508/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720172410/http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/bryozoa/index.html to http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/bryozoa/index.html

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) 17:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this thing called Bryozoa?
I read some of the article. I gather that these are marine invertebrates of some kind. There is a hint that they live only in colonies of mutually dependent individuals, so probably they are very small. I don't find a single sentence that makes clear sense to me as someone who is not a marine invertebrate zoologist. Is there no one who knows how to write, at the least, an introduction that is in language suitable for a general encyclopedia? Zaslav (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say the article provides an admirably comprehensive introduction to a little-known group of small sea-beasties. We're told that they are widespread, have many predators, and are nearly all static and colonial. The article is well-illustrated, and any reader who wanted to skim the text would get a good quick overview from the photographs, diagrams, tree of relationships, and perhaps (at a more advanced level) a glance at the table of comparisons with related groups. Given the amount of information being put across from the hundred-odd technical sources, I'd say (as a contributor to many similar articles, but not this one) it was rather well done. I'd agree that the lead is a bit long, and the first paragraph perhaps a bit complicated, but I certainly don't think the authors incompetent or illiterate. Happy New Year. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. No one is saying the authors are "incompetent or illiterate".  They have failed to convey basic information in the introduction in a way accessible to ordinary readers.  We don't know they are small, we don't know they are static (this could be said in plainer English in the introduction: "they are small invertebrates that live in large, sessile colonies in which individual members take on differentiated functions", for example.  How does that compare with the existing introduction?  I would do it myself but I don't know that I would be accurate.
 * I want to ask whether you are any kind of expert, or are an ordinary reader, so I know how to interpret your impression. Zaslav (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not really done here to make discussions personal as that can easily lead - does often lead - to personal attacks. However, I know some general biology; I have an amateur naturalist's interest in the sea and things in rock pools. I am certainly not an expert in Bryozoa. I was once taught that to write well about biology, one should write for a geologist: the idea was to assume he or she was intelligent and capable, but knew nothing of maxillae or messenger DNA. I feel that my geologist would see this article as quite detailed but certainly comprehensible. In other words the authors did a good job. I think the lead, especially the first paragraph, could be simplified a little, but it's already to a good standard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bryozoans. Some are solitary but all are colonial. Wait.
The article says, "One genus is solitary and the rest are colonial." (Introduction)

It also says, "They are the only major phylum of exclusively clonal animals, and they are all colonial ..."

I'm pretty sure that those sentences do not agree. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed not, I chopped the second bit. Most of us discovered early in our editing careers that the word "all" was to be used with extreme caution, if ever... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian
I don't have time or skills to do the update here, but bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian of China and Australia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04033-w

Wilson44691 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Which animals are bryozoans and what class are they in
What animals are in Bryozoa and what class are they in? 100.8.89.159 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Bryozoa is a phylum. It includes several classes. "Classes" is in the article's table of contents. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation 12 is not a professional source
Citation 12 'introduction to bryozans' seems like it's not a very informative source 70.189.72.110 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The source is the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It's hard to know how independently vetted the site is, so it would be nice to have an additional reliable source for any statements solely supported by this source. However, it's not a source I'd reject out of hand. Note that the page being linked has further links to other parts of the site, so there's more information than what is just on the front page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)