Talk:Deuterostome

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KoreanBobsledder.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous text
In the page on Chordata I find
 * Kingdom: Animalia
 * Subkingdom: Deuterostomia
 * Phylum: Chordata

How does that work with the box shown on this page where it's shown as a Superphylum? I don't really know how these things work. Should the boxes link to articles explaining the terms?

KayEss 21:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In general, the high level classification of animals is not standard. Subkingdoms and superphyla vary from author to author, so probably shouldn't be used on phylum pages. Josh

The classification here does not match that shown in the pages for Bilateria or Xenacoelomorpha, both of which place Xenacoelomorpha as the sister group to Nephrozoa, citing recent support. This point is clearly not beyond doubt, but the other pages seem to reflect the current consensus view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anropa (talk • contribs) 09:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Vetulicolia
Vetulicolia was erected by Shu, et.al. in 2001 as a phylum of deuterostomes. Are there any objections to adding it to the list of phylums here? --  Dalbury ( Talk )  20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Protostomes and deuterostomes are fundamental divisions of the animals. What would be the advantage of merging the articles into eumetazoa? I would prefer to have an article for each clade, at least at the higher levels for now, and eventually down to lower levels. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  01:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Deuterostomes and parasites
This site says "[n]one of the deuterostome phyla are truely parasitic". --  Dalbury ( Talk )  22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about deuterostome species, not phyla. Maybe there arn't any endoparasites, but there are still specialised parasites such as "vampire fish" which sucks blood from other fishes.


 * It depends on how you define parasite. For instance, the Wikipedia article Parasite includes the statement, Classically, the distinction between parasites and other symbionts was methodological: parasites were symbionts that could not be kept alive outside the host, unlike bacteria, for example, which could be cultured in a laboratory. Blood sucking fish and vampire bats are specialized feeders. As long as they leave their "hosts" after feeding, I don't consider them parasites. I would also note that some human groups consume blood drawn from living animals, but they are not called parasites.

There are cases of male parasitism on females in the Ceratioidei (anglerfishes), and maybe some other fishes, but that is a rather specialized type of parasitism. Can you cite any other deuterostomes that have become obligate parasites? --  Dalbury ( Talk )  18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

yunnanozoans
i am taking a evolution class now and we have talked about yunnanozoans. they are dificult to fit anywhere it seems. perhaps someone should have a look at nature 430:426 (2004) and nature 402:44 (1999).
 * See Yunnanozoon. As many of us don't have access to Nature, listing article titles and authors would help us search for abstracts, comments, etc. -- Donald Albury 10:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bourlat et al. (2006) paper
Should the article be updated with reference to ? Bondegezou 10:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not. The abstract for the article is at, so that can be included in the citation. -- Donald Albury 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Porcellio: I agree. The citation of Stach et al is neither the first mention of ambulacraria nor does it give strong support for the clade. I replaced it with the Bourlat et al article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcellio (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

diagrams
some diagrams on the embryonic development of protostomes vs. deuterostomes would be a nice addition. --66.32.146.72 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Chordata
Phylum Chordata is not all vertebrates. There are invertebrates in Chordata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.240.243 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tentaculate Fossils Interpreted as Primitive Deuterostomes
See recent article

http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009586 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.148.217 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Breaking News of earliest-yet discovered Deuterostome
The following has appeared on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38800987 Googling Saccorhytus finds a number of other news reports, but an article might need someone qualified in the field rather than an interested layman like myself. The actual Letter in Nature is at http://www.nature.com/articles/nature21072.epdf?referrer_access_token=O7fr6S2uCrl0bSEaJoRfhtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oz0VvtJ3OoBhIW1AQ7Cw_oSd6iCVf7msxw6fhyZLzYDmGcrdwhwTwE9VuvaIh0-hffANoXxPBjgU-bVMuzO5lfnqH8wIm5zntid0qYiX8smFu4qQl-5n3RRRUjcennrHJvD76n8j3Ofdelp7QfNRFHz2mfF3e5GgBYIrKTf2IF7g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.co.uk – {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert either, but I've added a reference to the discovery where I thought was most suitable ("Origins and evolution"). It can be expanded/moved by an expert as necessary. – TastyChikan (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Saccorhytus as a phylum
Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deuterostome&diff=prev&oldid=763010945 added Saccorhytus as one of the phyla of deuterostomia. I don't know what the convention is on references for information in these taxonomy boxes, but I can't see where this is coming from (it's certainly not anywhere else in the article). The reason I'm brining it up is that the Wikipedia page for Saccorhytus lists it as a genus (again, without a reference), not as a phylum. My guess is that genus is the correct one (therefore, the revision I mentioned should be undone), but I'm not an expert, so we should wait for an expert opinion, ideally with some references. – TastyChikan (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're correct that Saccorhytus is the genus, not phylum. My reading of the Saccorhytus description paper is that the authors didn't want to go further than erecting a new genus (Saccorhytus) and family (Saccorhytidae) at this stage, pending searches for more specimens of it and of related early Deuterostome organisms (now they have a better idea of what they're looking for), but there seems little doubt that this new genus must also represent a new phylum, because it's too different from any previously known phyla: hence their suggestion of the as-yet unranked name of Saccorhytida as a "new stem group", which will become the phylum if further discoveries corroborate it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.118.169 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a part sentence and a reference on the very uncertain position of Saccorhyntus, which now seems to be a very basal Ecdysozoan, the suppused body pores that were its only link to deuterostomes appear to be the stump of hollow spines. Reading some of the articles on this very hyped animal, one does wonder how anyone could really believe this to be an ancestor of us, as it is clearly a very simplified live form in a time the ancestors of fish were probably already swimming around (their first fossils are present some 20 mY later). So it lived some 100 mY too late to claim any such position.
 * Considering all this, it might be best to delete this animal from this section, since it seems to have lost its relevance. Also as a site note: the proposed split between prostomes and deutorestomes in the diagram is here way to late, considering Kimberella moving around 555 mY ago. That should be around 600 mY and the split between Echinodermata and Hemichordata must also have been way earlier in the Ediacaran, considering Arkarua moving around in the same deposits. Codiv (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now deleteted this, since my remark has been unupposed for a year Codiv (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Combining 'Classification History' section with 'Classification' section
After looking at this page, it seems a little unnecessary to have the two sections 'Classification History' and 'Classification' separate from each other, as well as in different places (the beginning and end) of the Wikipedia article. The section containing 'Notable Characteristics' would be a better first section to have listed after the introduction, as it defines what Deuterostomes are and how they are all related to each other. A way to implement both of these changes could be seen as how the Chordate 'Classifcation' section and subsections are organized.

Also, the section on the 'Formation of the Mouth and Anus' could also be included as a subsection of 'Notable Characteristics' as it is already commented upon first in that section. A way to implement both of these changes could be seen as how the section and subsections are organized. KoreanBobsledder (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Human development
In reference 5 of Embryological origins of the mouth and anus, the human mouth forms at 4 weeks and the anus at 8 weeks, which seems to contradict its classification as a deuterostome. I'm confused. Can an expert help clarify this? -- SpareSimian (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted a dubious statement
Deleted this bit While protostomes as a monophyletic group has strong support, research has shown that deuterostomes may be paraphyletic, and what was once considered traits of deuterostomes could instead be traits of the last common bilaterian ancestor. This suggests the deuterostome branch is very short or non-existent. The Xenambulacraria's sister group could be both the chordates or the protostomes, or be equally distantly related to them both. This is very much opposed by much research, see for instance the chapter on Deuterostomes in "The invertebrate tree of life". I do notice that quite often a single publication is cited as proof of a totally different opinion, but let's use the "exceptional claims need exceptional good proof" as a sort of good sence in matters like this and not try to cry wolve to quickly. Codiv (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)