User talk:JDinauer/Group Sandbox

Hey all I will be posting tomorrow night I am finishing up and getting caught up. Balakay29 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

GUIDANCE MOVING FORWARD
All: Thank you for organizing your drafts and responses so nicely. I am responding to each of you here: BLAKE: KALINA: JACK: Osquaesitor (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be difficult for you to find an open-source image of a phylogeny to contribute.
 * You don't have to add an image that directly relates to the topic you are writing about. You can contribute something else.
 * The current phylogeny was drawn by another Wikipedian using a 2006 Phylogeny as a basis. You COULD re0draw it with new information but again, it may be easier to contribute an image of something different.
 * Looks good. Nothing like being ahead.
 * Some of the manuscript sources may have this. Spend Wed. looking and I can assist.

How do I get expert help? Balakay29 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry for the slow reply. There should be a "Get Help" button on the course homepage. There should be a button called "question about editing Wikipedia." You should be able to type a message asking for feedback. You should also have that button in you sandbox. You can also find more directions in Week 5. Whitefke (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey everybody, my draft will be posted by tomorrow night I am still working on it. I had a very busy week and am trying to take my time on it. Thank you. Balakay29 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

DR. SCHUTZ DRAFT FEEDBACK PART 1
Hello all, I know I shared this resource with you all during class, but I encourage you all to take a closer look. Page 94 for starters (in the pdf) may be of particular use and the images here are absolutely ok to extract from the pdf, modify and re-upload.Osquaesitor (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

KNOWL8DGE'S PEER REVIEWS
== Knowl8dge (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

[]

BLAKE'S PEER REVIEW

- Blake's edit is a paragraph of a phylogeny contribution to the Cyclostomes and focuses on early characteristics and development. The edited content appears to be clear and uses neutral phrasing to explain historical significance. I think this contribution is well suited for the diagram listed in the Wikipedia article and further elaborates on what is going on in the phylogeny. The citations look to be inserted correctly within the edited paragraph, although it looks like Blake manually added them below his contribution, instead of generating it through the Wiki citations. Blake mentioned adding some images to the paragraph, I suggest searching through Wikimedia.

Suggested copy edits noted in bold:

-Hagfish are '''included in the Cyclostome group, along with jawless fish. Cyclostomes are characterized by two significant characteristics'''; keratinous tooth plates and movement of postotic myomeres to the orbitals[1]. According to the fossil record, Hagfish and Lampreys have been estimated to have diverged from one another during the Paleozoic period[1]. One experiment used an estimation of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions for nucleotides, and supplemented that data with pre-existing data into a clock that would calculate divergence times for the taxons Myxine and Eptratus[2]. These data found that the lineage diverged around 93-28 Mya[2]. Hagfish are excluded from the group Gnathostomes because of morphological characteristics including the Hagfish's arched tongue[3]. Hagfish embryos have characteristics of Gnathostomes and may be pleisomorphic (include a citation to this term), however these characteristics drastically change morphologically as the Hagfish matures[3] The following hagfish and lamprey phylogeny is an adaptation based on the 2006 work by Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku[2]:

KALINA'S PEER REVIEW

- Kalina's edit is a couple of additional sentences and citations to the paragraphs slime and nervous system. I suggest maybe adding a little more information to the nervous system section, since this area is mostly brief. Kalina also added a great media addition to display this slime that the hagfish uses. Great organized citations generated and neutral wording to the additional sentences.

Suggested copy edits noted in bold:

-Hagfish are long and vermiform, and can exude copious quantities of a milky and fibrous slime or mucus from around 100 glands or invaginations running along their flanks.[4] This slime that hagfish excrete contain very thin fibers that make it more durable and sticky than the slime excreted by other fish.[8] The species Myxine glutinosa was named for this slime. When captured and held, e.g., by the tail, they secrete the microfibrous mucus, which expands into up to 20 litres (​5 1⁄4 US gallons) of sticky, gelatinous material when combined with water;[5] one litre of slime has about 40 milligrams of mucus and proteins.[6] If they remain captured, they can tie themselves in an overhand knot, and work their way from the head to the tail of the animal, scraping off the slime and freeing them from their captor. Rheological investigations have shown that hagfish slime viscosity increases in elongational flow which favors gill clogging of suction feeding fish, while its viscosity decreases in shear which facilitates scraping off the slime by the travelling-knot.[7]

-The origins of the vertebrate nervous system are of considerable interest to evolutionary biologists, and cyclostomes (hagfish and lampreys) are an important group for answering this question. The complexity of the hagfish brain has been an issue of debate since the late 19th century, with some morphologists suggesting that they do not possess a cerebellum, while others suggesting that it is continuous with the midbrain.[9] It is now considered that the hagfish neuroanatomy is similar to that of lampreys.[10] A common feature of hagfish and lampreys is the absence of myelin in neurons.[11] The brain of a hagfish has specific parts similar to the brains of other vertebrates.[12] The dorsal and ventral muscles located towards the side of the hagfish body are connected to spinal nerves.[13]

JACK'S PEER REVIEW

- Jack's edit contributions include adding additional context to the paragraph's of the reproduction section. I would suggest searching for some images regarding the parts of the reproductive system of the hagfish to add to this portion of the article, although there are already a couple drawings of the hagfish present in the article. For the most part, the edits of the texts appear in a neutral tone, although there are some wording I would suggest changing to be more neutral (referenced below in the suggested copy edits). The citations look great and appear to have a variety of reliable sources.

Suggested copy edits noted in bold:

-Very little is known about hagfish reproduction. Obtaining embryos and observing reproductive behavior are difficult due to the deep-sea habitat of many hagfish species.[1] In the wild, females outnumber males, with the exact sex-ratio differing depending on the species. E. burgeri, for example, has nearly a 1:1 ratio, while the M. glutinosa females are significantly more common than males.[1] Some species of hagfish are sexually undifferentiated before maturation, and posses gonadal tissue for both ovaries and testis.[2] It has been suggested that females develop earlier than males and that this may be the reason for unequal sex ratios. Hagfish testis are relatively small.[1]

Depending on the species, females lay from 1 to 30 tough, yolky eggs. These tend to aggregate due to the Velcro-like tufts at either end.[1] It is unclear how hagfish go about laying eggs, although researchers have proposed three hypotheses based on observations of the low percentage of males and small testis. They are 1) Female hagfish lay eggs in small crevices in rock formations. 2) The eggs are laid in burrow beneath the sand. 3) The slime produced by the hagfish is used to hold the eggs in a small area.[1] It is worth noting that no direct evidence has been found to support any of these hypotheses. Hagfish do not have a larval stage, in contrast to lampreys, and are born miniature versions of their parents.[1]

Hagfish have a mesonephric kidney and are often neotenic of their pronephric kidney. The kidney(s) are drained via mesonephric/archinephric duct. Unlike many other vertebrates, this duct is separate from the reproductive tract, and the proximal tubule of the nephron is also connected with the coelom, provided lubrication.[3] The single testicle or ovary has no transportation duct. Instead, the gametes are released into the coelom until they find their way to the posterior end of the caudal region, whereby they find an opening in the digestive system.

The hagfish embryo can develop for as long as 11 months before hatching. This differs in comparison to other jawless vertebrates.[4] Information on their embryology has been obscured (suggest rewording this term for neutrality) until recently, when husbandry advances enabled considerable insight into the group's evolutionary development. New insights into the evolution of neural crest cells support the consensus that all vertebrates share these cells, which might be regulated by a common subset of genes.[5] Hagfish possess Gonadotropins which secrete from pituitary glands to the gonads to stimulate development.[6] This suggests that hagfish have an early version of the Hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis and was once thought to be exclusive to the Gnathostomes.

Blake
Hagfish and lamprey are not proper nouns and therefore do not need to be capitalized when you use them in the middle of a sentence.

In the first line "is characterized by two significant characteristics" is a little repetitive. Maybe replace characteristics with traits.

In my opinion it sounds a little more cohesive to swap the positions of the these two sentences and have it read like this, "Hagfish embryos have characteristics of gnathostomes and may be pleisomorphic, however these characteristics drastically change morphologically as the Hagfish matures. Therefore hagfish are excluded from the group gnathostomes because of adult morphological characteristics including their arched tongue."

Your sources look good!

I agree with you that this section would benefit from adding an image that you can reference/expand upon.

Kalina
I really liked that you highlighted the information that you added as well as including the original version. Made it really easy to exactly what you changed and the context. However I would have liked it if you would have also mentioned what section of the article these edits are being made in.

I like the image you contributed! I really think it adds to the section.

Most of your sources look really good, but I would take a look at sources five and six. I could be wrong but I don't think these are acceptable peer reviewed sources.

Jack
I would have liked it if you discussed why you made some of these edits, especially in the first paragraph. You seem to be taking out a lot of information, is this because it was inaccurate? Because the sources were insufficient or missing? Was it already mentioned elsewhere in the article? Just would have liked a brief explanation since it is unclear to me when reading it why some of this information was removed.

When you list the three hypotheses for how they lay eggs, I wouldn't number them. You could either just list them with commas or if you wanted to break them into individual sentences then "The first of these hypotheses being..., The second proposed hypothesis is..., etc. I think either of these would look more professional than the way it is now.

I don't think it is necessary to add in that hagfish "are born miniature versions of their parents", as you just stated that they do not have a larval stage.

In the first line of the last paragraph, you say "This differs in comparison to other jawless vertebrates." I think if you are going to have this there it only makes sense if you say how this is different than other jawless vertebrates. Is the embryonic development longer or shorter? In a different order? Missing some steps?

The sources you added all look good!

Overall I though your edits were good and made the section flow better and more cohesive. Nautas99 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review by Kanessa192
This looks really good! The proposed edits seem objective and unbiased, and I’m impressed with the number of sources you have. I also like how you structured this – having the original excerpts posted right by the edited version makes it easy to follow and gives good context. It looks like you guys are focusing on the main page and adding more about reproduction, anatomy, and phylogenetics, which is similar to what my group is attempting to do with the lamprey.

Blake: Adding photos from journal articles might not be possible, but I like the idea of creating a composite diagram that incorporates relevant information from these sources. That way, you can make sure the information is relevant to your explanation, and you can label specific nodes or areas of the diagram to reference in your text.

Kalina: The nervous system section looks interesting! Thanks for highlighting the text you’ve added, it makes things even easier to critique. My only suggestion would be to rearrange the information about the slime a little bit to make things flow better – maybe something like: Hagfish are long and vermiform, and can exude copious quantities of a milky and fibrous slime or mucus from some 100 glands or invaginations running along their flanks.[4] The species Myxine glutinosa was named for this slime. When captured and held, e.g., by the tail, they secrete the microfibrous mucus, which expands into up to 20 litres (5 1⁄4 US gallons) of sticky, gelatinous material when combined with water;[5] one litre of slime has about 40 milligrams of mucus and proteins.[6] These proteins compose very thin fibers that make hagfish slime more durable and sticky than slime excreted by other animals.[8]If they remain captured, they can tie themselves in an overhand knot, which works its way from the head to the tail of the animal, scraping off the slime as it goes and freeing them from their captor. Rheological investigations showed that hagfish slime viscosity increases in elongational flow which favors gill clogging of suction feeding fish, while its viscosity decreases in shear which facilitates scraping off the slime by the travelling-knot.[7]

Jack: I’m impressed with how much info you found on this! I had a harder time coming up with information on lamprey development and reproduction, but I did find an article that discusses (among other things) neural crest development in cyclostomes – the link is here, I’m not sure if you’d find it useful.

Since my group (lampreys) is the sister taxon to hagfish, maybe we can compare and contrast some evolutionary adaptations and developmental stages. Overall, this looks really good – looking at the original article, you might be fine referencing the images that are already included (I’d still like to see Blake’s ideas for adding more images). It seems like this all meshes well with what’s already covered in the article, and it fills in some gaps. Nice work!

Kanessa192 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)