Talk:Trichoplax

Clarity
Current article reads in part A mature individual consists of up to a thousand cells that can be divided into four different cell types. However this section then only mentions three cell types, and it's not clear whether the third type unciliated gland cells are between the cells in the layer of epitheloid and therefore part of that layer, or between the layers.

Presumably, the fourth cell type is the Fiber syncytium mentioned in the next section.

Both points... the exact positioning of the third type of cell, and the identity of the fourth... need clarification IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the sentence to clarify that "dorsal epithelia cells and ventral epithelia cells" were two different cell types. Zipzip50 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How many cells?
Under Morphology:  It is made up of a few thousand cells. Under Epitheloid: A mature individual consists of up to a thousand cells. Zipzip50 (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

family, class, and order names: invalid?
Is there any validity to the names "Trichoplacia", "Trichoplaciformes", and "Trichoplacidae"? Google scholar does not bring results, and web searches return non-reliable sources and/or wikipedia mirrors. The World Placozoa Database, written by experts, states: "With only one species the phylum knows only three taxonomic ranks: Phylum (Placozoa), genus (Trichoplax), and species (T. adhaerens)". Thus I believe the intermediate ranks between phylum and genus to be completely made up until proven otherwise. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The family Trichoplacidae looks like being formally defined according to this preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/10/13/202119.full.pdf . I agree, the other names for class and order (also the family up to now) appear to have simply been made up in the past. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The published version of the work cited above, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005359 cites "Trichoplacidae, Bütschli and Hatschek 1905" with the reference "Bütschli O, Hatschek B. Zoologisches Zentralblatt. Schuberg A, editor. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig; 1905." The name is in fact found in that work in the "genus and family register" (in German) on p. 904, with a reference to entry no. 292 which is a discussion of Trichoplax and related forms on pp. 221-231 by E. Korschelt, however the term Trichoplacidae does not appear there; thus (unless I have missed it) it appears that the name originates from the compilers (the relevant pages are in BHL at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1717106 (index) and https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1716423 (p. 221 onwards)). So I believe usage of the family is good as a formal designation. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)