User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Invertzoo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ARCHIVE PAGE 4: January 2008 to February 2008

I moved this new taxonomy to its own page Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) and mentioned it in the section "taxonomy" of the Gastropoda article. Whenever you make a change to a gastropod article, it will be handy if you want to check the latest taxonomy. JoJan (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail a few days ago. Did you get it? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I am not 100% sure whether I got it: was it about voting for a restaurant? As it turns out, I think I probably cannot come to the main part of the meeting, only to the pre-meeting at the AMNH. By the way, I asked in Zoology and Paleontology and I could not find anyone who would be in on a Sunday, so that means I cannot take anyone behind the scenes. Invertzoo (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It was rather about connecting with the person giving the tour at AMNH. If you send me an e-mail, I'll forward his message to you. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the place holder images, I do feel bad about the burden I've been, in that regard. Thanks also for removing all the daggers you could as well. That is a big big help for that kind of article. I would have done it myself but I know very little about gastropods, so that kind of thing is not very practical for me. As for functionality, it's not supposed to be for all gastropods, just ones that are known to be prehistoric. I know it's a big list as it is, but since it's a direct port of Jack Sepkoski's 2002 list of fossils, so it should be reasonably close to completion anyway. Even if it's not, a big list is just as useful as a small one, in my opinion, even if it is "unwieldy," as you put it. :) Thanks for the New Years greetings. I hope your having a pleasant one yourself. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on removing at least some of the unnecessary daggers, which is a slow and painstaking process. We all try to help one another with this stuff. If you ever need someone to check any gastropod stuff for you, please just ask on the talk page at WikiProject Gastropods. I did want to explain that when you said: "it's not supposed to be for all gastropods, just ones that are known to be prehistoric", the problem is, that almost every gastropod genus which is found living now, also lived in the late Pleistocene, and has been found in the fossil record, apart from those which do not leave any fossil record at all of course. The late Pleistocene fauna was almost identical to the current fauna, and that means that the list becomes by default every gastropod genus, or at any rate every shelled gastropod genus. Invertzoo (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

G'day from Australia. Yes, I have been doing a bit of work on gastropods lately, but my focus is actually on other stuff. I did some gastropod stuff when creating List of molluscs of the Houtman Abrolhos, as part of my current obsession with that archipelago. And I created that category because Polbot has been dumping lots of stubs into Category:Fauna of Australia, and it was getting a bit overpopulated. I hadn't thought about the issue of marine versus terrestrial; to my mind the category is for both, but I shan't complain if you WikiProject Gastropod people want to redefine it. No, I won't join your project; these days I tend not to join anything much, but thanks all the same. Hesperian 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good day to you too Hesperian, from a sunny (but temps below freezing) New York City. Nice to hear from you. Thanks for the info, and thanks for the category, which is handy to have. There will be marine, terrestrial and freshwater gastropods in it no doubt, but it is perfectly fine for all three kinds to be in the same category. No problem. I didn't really imagine you would want to join project gastropods, but it doesn't hurt to ask... Best to you, and all good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi InvertZoo, Have taken care of the dab page. There seems to be various ways of doing this, but I have done the simplest as there are only 2 alternatives. The first thing I did was rename both Inellas. If you now enter simply Inella the dab page should display with options. There probably is a 'how to' for this, but I've just done it manually. BTW, thanks for the thanks, it's nice to get one occasionally! Is it snowing in NY? Still waiting here in London. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Thanks so much for explaining one version of the dab to me. And really it is very nice to see all your mollusk additions, I very much like to learn about the fauna of the southern seas, and it is great to see Project Gastropod filling out nicely: we we are starting to get articles for species in so many of the families now, even in many of those micromollusk families. My sister just sent me some shells and a book on mollusks all from Argentina, so if I run out of things to do there is another few hundred WP articles waiting to be born. We have no snow right now, but we had a fair bit already earlier on in the winter. Cheers to you too. Invertzoo (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is very kind of you to comment on the images. It was the first time I saw a nudibranch laying eggs and there was another one the same kind just few inches away laying eggs too. I was so excited that I even nominated the image to get FP Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Acanthodoris lutea laying eggs, but there's no interest in the subject at all. That's why your comments are very important to me. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh your images are gorgeous, I always enjoy them, I'm sorry people didn't take to that one as a FP. Seriously Mila, if you have ANY nice mollusk pictures of any kind which are not on display because there is not an article for them, please tell me and I will put an article together. Do you still have images of those sea slugs that looks a bit like ? I remember we did get that species ID and we could do an article for that one maybe? Invertzoo (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi InvertZoo. Would like your opinion on changes I'm thinking of doing to the high level Mollusc pages, but am a bit nervous precisely because it is at such a high level. 1. Rename Caudofoveata to Chaetodermomorpha (with Caudofoveata as a synonym), 2. Make Chaetodermomorpha a subclass of Aplacophora (and remove duplicate families from one of them), 3. Remove Caudofoveata from the class list in Mollusca. Any thoughts? There are inconsistencies at present. Ideas based on ITIS Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Oh gee, this is a hard question. I would not just assume that ITIS is using the most "well-regarded" molluscan taxonomy right now; in fact they may be quite a bit behind the times. I would address this question to JoJan, who would give you a better opinion than I can. He is at: [1] ....best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi InvertZoo, it seems 'clade' doesn't show up in the taxobox display. Is this something that needs to be tweaked in the template? Notacloudinthesky. GrahamBould (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Yes, I am assuming that the code for the template of the taxobox would have to be rewritten to allow this. You or I can ask JoJan about what we can and can't do, since I guess since he would probably know what it would entail. JoJan mentioned this problem to me when he realized that this new taxonomic scheme needs "clade" and "group". The thing is, I don't know if the taxobox template, wherever it is found, belongs simply to our Project Gastropods, or whether it is a major template for all the WP zoology or even biology articles...? Invertzoo (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now joined the gastropod group! May we grow and become strong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbonilla (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! We are very please to have you! WELCOME TURBONILLA! I am especially happy to have an editor here who understands something about the Pyramidellidae, because it's such a huge and fascinating family, and I would really like to know more about it. By the way, just to let you know a couple of little things: 1. It's good to sign your name by putting four "~"s after you leave a message, and 2. When you are doing some editing, if you can try to remember to fill in something brief in the "Edit summary" slot at the bottom of whichever editing page you are on each time before you do a "Save page", that would be a really helpful thing too. All good wishes to you. Invertzoo (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a question about the "higher" systematics of aplacophorans. Ponder and Lindberg have just published an edited book on molluscan phylogenetics (PHYLOGENY and EVOLUTION of the MOLLUSCA - university of California Press 2008). There is a chapter there about the phylogeny of the classes Caudofoveata, Solenogastres and Polyplacophora (Chapter 2 Todt et al.) that is surely the most updated information on the systematics of these groups. Turbonilla (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks Turbonilla! I will try to get ahold of a copy of that. I will also pass your info along to GrahamBould, who was the one who was asking about how to handle the taxoboxes of the Aplacophora entries he was doing. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Invertzoo. You've done great work.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you,Invertzoo. I took this image today. The yellow thing inside sea anemone was very small and I could not watch it because the tide was coming, but it was interesting the way the aneomene reacted at this yellow thing. I know it is really hard to see, but I wonder, if you think the yellow thing could have been a nudibranch? Thank you for your time--Mbz1 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  You are welcome. It's an interesting image, I think you could perhaps be right that this was a nudibranch, because of that strong yellow color... but at the same time it does not look like a contracted nudibranch really, because it looks fuzzy in outline as if it were already dead and disintegrating when the anemone got it. Or maybe it is a chunk of yellow muscle tissue from another mollusk. Did the anemone seem to want to eat it? By the way, if you live near the coast, WP could certainly use good images of all of the different species of common intertidal snails and mussels and clams and chitons, that is, if you felt like photographing them. I would be happy to write articles on all those species. Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  I live close to Pacific and I like to take images of tide pool creatures. It did not look as sea anemone was going to eat the yellow thing, but as I said the tide was coming rather fast. Suddenly I found myself staying up to my knees in the boiling water, so I run to the shore. May I please ask you to take a look at the two images: . Do you see the green round thing at this seagrass. Do you believe these are eggs? The next image is of a sea lemonFile:Anisodoris nobilis in tide pools.JPG. It almost looked like it tried to camouflage itself and I've never seen a nudibranch doing something like this.Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  I really can't tell what that green thing is, sorry. If I still lived in California I might be able to guess. As for the sea lemon picture, many nudibranchs do very closely resemble whatever they eat, and are usually found living on the sponge or bryozoan that they eat. This species eats sponges. This one in addition may have "flattened itself down" onto the substrate so as not to be washed off by the waves. As you have probably noticed, they look more perky and shapely when they are "walking" around. Invertzoo (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  It is excatly what it done "flattened itself down". I took quite a few images of Sea Lemon. I see them more often that other ones sometimes even out of the water.English wikipedia has an article on Sea lemon. I'm not sure, if we have an article about these guys ;;. These are the only images of them I have. Thank you again for your time and your help.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the English Wikipedia does have an article about "Sea lemon" but it is about one whole family of nudibranchs, the Dorididae. I am happy that I can now make an individual article about the species Diaulula sandiegensis and about Anisodoris nobilis! Yay! I will look at your images carefully in order to try to check that they are all of just those two species. As I have said before, I am really not very expert at all on the nudibranchs, because I have mainly studied shells, I know a whole lot more about shelled gastropods and bivalves and a little bit about chitons and scaphopods. I never lived anywhere where there were so many nudibranchs that could easily be observed. You are fortunate! Invertzoo (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Invertzoo,
May I please thank you for all the work you're doing in helping me to ID the slugs at my images and discraibing them in the articles?
I corrected the description for the yellow nudibranch. May I please ask you, if bristleworms would attack an anemone? The guy from my fourth image did. Do they live in California tidepools? Here's much better image of the same slug Flickr image.
Here's one more image of sea lemon and one more --Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Mila, You are very welcome! The yellow nudibranch with the white dots is Doriopsilla albopunctata from the family Dendrodorididae, if you want to change that image file name. I will try to do an article on that one today and on Aeolidia papillosa. My mistake, you are absolutely right that the image is of A. papillosa eating an anemone. It looked kind of weird from that angle, but you are totally right. Thanks for the extra images of Anisodoris nobilis. If I can, I will do that one today too. Invertzoo (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aeolidia papillosa, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://slugsite.us/bow/nudwk407.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello.
Here are some images from today: ; and one more from few days ago . Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Mila. Beautiful images!! You make a tide pool look like the tropical rain forest! I will try to use them today or tomorrow. We just got a new computer so I was out of action for a while. Do you know which whelk species it was laid the egg cases? Do you have a picture of the whelk? You took the images at Moss Beach is it? I was also looking in my book yesterday, and thinking that the "squished down" and "camouflaged" yellow dorid in that previous image might actually be a Geitodoris heathi rather than a Anisodoris nobilis. Invertzoo (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you,Invertzoo. Here's the image, which shows the whelks: the whelks. The last images were taken 4-7 miles Southern from Moss Beach. They might be Pteropurpura trialata Please take your time.I know what it means to get a new computer.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mila, Thanks: more really nice images! I will try to do the article for Phidiana hiltoni tomorrow. And also maybe the "whelk" with egg capsules one. The "whelks", yes they are muricids, the murex or rock shell family, but I don't think they are actually the muricid Pteropurpura trialata, I think they are Ceratostoma, either C. foliata (or possibly C. nuttalli, which may not occur as far north as you are.) If you see them again, if you are curious, pick one up and turn it over: Ceratostoma has a very clear spike or "thorn" on the edge of the aperture of the shell. Pteropurpura does not have this. Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you,Invertzoo. I took few more images today . Please make sure to look at the other versions. I took a bad image of the smalest nudibranch I've ever seen. I'll try to upload it later tonight and let you know, when I do. I doubt I'll go to tide pools any time soon. I hurt my leg today.Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the nudibranch with my fingers to show the size:.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mila, So sorry to hear that you hurt your leg: I hope it's not serious and that it heals fast. Thanks for the new images, especially the one of the minute but perky Doto nudibranch! I will do articles but I may not get much done on here today, I will be busy with other stuff. best to youInvertzoo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Invertzoo. Sorry I could not take a better image of Doto. It is just too small for my camera (or maybe it was too small for the photographer). I uploaded one more image even worse than the first one (sorry), but here it is . Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)