Talk:Scaly-foot gastropod

Not sure about the binomial name
For the record, I'm not sure how well the name Crysomallon squamiferum is accepted, as almost all of the references to this name online are in Japanese. Melchoir (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This name Crysomallon squamiferum is still just a 'leaked' MS name, unpublished as indicated http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3869010/ and https://twitter.com/expeditionlog/status/566853510269263872 and http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=736932 Pherusan (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I got it from the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:ウロコフネタマガイ, 2008 version, which seems to have gotten it from the following PDF hosted by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in 2007: https://www.jamstec.go.jp/maritec/j/blueearth/2007/yokou/PS88.PDF, which begins "ウロコフネタマガイ(Crysomallon squamiferum)をはじめとするインド洋カイレイフィールドにて採集された熱水性 生物の採集・船上飼育について ○北田 貢・三宅 裕志・(新江ノ島水族館)、鈴木 庸平((独)産業技術総合研究所)、高井 研(JAMSTEC)" I guess Ken Takai of JAMSTEC might be able to trace it from there. Melchoir (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Crysomallon squamiferum is a temporary name, as it has not been validly published in the sense of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. I've mentioned this in the article. JoJan (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scaly-foot gastropod. 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/20131004213655/http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hp/sasaki/p/017.pdf to http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hp/sasaki/p/017.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) 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical weirdness from source
The paper "By more ways than one" (2017) has some weirdness (some of it grammatical), which is reflected in this article. I've attempted to interpret it in order to clarify the article, but I thought it was worth disclaiming authority here: It is an educated guess of mine, for example, that the ventricle dimensions given in Table 1 are lengths. FWIW, I'm of the opinion that with the fairly stilted and strange language in parts of the article, some of it referencing that paper, and the general excessive wordy detail, I don't think this still qualifies as a Good Article. --Anon423 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)—

The paper referenced:

--Anon423 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, I've added a statement that might border on original research (synthesis), but which I hope is a reasonable introduction (in the service of readability) to the notes on sensitivity, mineral richness, and genetic isolation taken from the same source and explicated in the rest of the paragraph. I think it qualifies as a non-editorial summary, but let me know if you disagree. "The population at the Longqi vent field may be of particular concern." --Anon423 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)