Talk:Coelom

Not informative of phylogeny
Coeloms are not considered informative characters anymore. The page should be edited to reflect this.

Image
The image doesn't show a layer of mesodermic tissue encapsulating the endoderm. Doens't this make it an image of a pseudocoelom? 99.175.203.97 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has now been fixed, as the current image clearly shows a true coelom. Augurar (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Body cavity article
Body cavity article has some detailed info about coelom. Those lines could be transfered here. Tevfik A. (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Misleading phrasing (not sure how to correct)
The introduction uses the phrase "higher metazoans" and "less developed animals". These terms are not really in line with current evolutionary theory (see e.g. Largest-scale trends in evolution). However, due to the vagueness of these terms, I'm not really sure how to replace them. It's possible that these terms are not descriptive, but definitional, i.e. "higher metazoans" are those with epithelium-lined coela. Can anyone clarify? Augurar (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Coelom. 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/20090406000959/http://courses.bio.psu.edu:80/fall2005/biol110/tutorials/tutorial39.htm to http://courses.bio.psu.edu/fall2005/biol110/tutorials/tutorial39.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clasification
I love the editors of Wikipedia, but every now-and-then I see something that makes me despair. The Classification section had these three examples of textbooks—(e.g., Hyman, 1940)(even recent as Margulis & Chapman, 2009)(e.g., Whittaker, 1969)[sic]. Nowhere at all in the entire article, including references, is there any other information about them! Really!?! This is some editor's idea of good writing?

The introduction was three tangled paragraphs, so I straightened them out. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ you are a gem. Going to have a bit of an edit here myself, please have a look when I'm done and we can both straighten out and simplify the rest of the article while you're here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Phylogeny
"In the past, some zoologists grouped bilaterian animal phyla based on characteristics related to the coelom for practical purposes, knowing, and explicitly stating, that these groups were not phylogenetically related." I am having trouble to find any old sources that present a phylogeny like the one seen in bad textbooks, which makes me think there is some truth in this statement. Whittaker's classification was highly polyphyletic, so I don't think his proposal has any cladistic basis. Similarly, Hyman's (1940) classification may divided acoelomates, pseudocoelomates and coelomates, but the evolutionary tree presented is quite modern-ish. Was it always acknowledged that the coelom has nothing to do with the interrelationships of "phyla"? Are textbook cladograms made-up instead of just outdated? Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)