Talk:Animal

Expansion on diversity sections.

The two sections describing animal diversity, non-bilaterans and bilaterans are very short. It seems like they should expanded, but I don't know by how much as the article is already quite long. There are plenty of sources on other linked pages to easily make the expansion if it is warranted. Riverskip (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually the article is well under the 12,000 word informal limit. However I'm unsure what you are suggesting. The non-bilateran/bilateran split is under "Phylogeny" and there I don't think we should explore every arm of the Animal kingdom. "Diversity" has Size factoids and a section on demography. Perhaps if you posted a couple of sources it would be clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I was mainly thinking like a full paragraph on each of porifera, cnidaria, placozoa, and ctenophora. I was thinking a better description of their anatomy, especially as it relates to reproduction and nervous systems. I am less sure about how much the already larger section on bilateralans should be expanded. Riverskip (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so we are discussing "Phylogeny", esp non-bilaterian animals.

The organizational structure of wikipedia generally prefers WP:summary style. That is why "Bilateria" section of this article has a {{main}} link. The topic Non-bilaterian redirects to the section of this article "Non-bilaterian". So that section should have content that summarized sources on "Non-bilaterian" (not too many on Google Scholar however) and could have summaries of subtopics, exactly as you propose. For example a paragraph on porifera would have a {{main}} to Porifera and ideally be a summary (something like the first paragraph) of that article. (Ideally, but to be sure I find the quality of subtopic articles often requires editing them as well). Johnjbarton (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like your thoughts on what I have so far. I completely split up the non-bilateran section as it is not a term in common use. I split it into sections for each of the phylum that are not in bilatera with the corresponding main article links. Riverskip (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks great! Porifera is a bit long but not outrageously so. To whatever extent possible, adding distinctions unique to each phyla makes the content for the topic stronger. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Short description: “A kingdom of life”

I made a small change to the short description — from “Kingdom of life” to “A kingdom of life” — which clarifies the intended meaning and clears up the scope. My concern was that “Kingdom of life” can read as confusing or ambiguous. One possible reading is: — THE kingdom of ALL life Another possible intent might be: — ONE kingdom/category within all life The latter (one kingdom within life, i.e., Animal Kingdom, Plant Kingdom, etc.) could be the correct interpretation, but “Kingdom of life” leaves the meaning and scope unclear. I realize WP:SDFORMAT generally says to avoid starting short descriptions with the articles A/An/The. Yet, WP:SDFORMAT also gives an exception “when an article is required for correct grammar and meaning”. In this case, I think the indefinite article (“A kingdom of life”) pins down the meaning, rather than merely adding a needless word. I did some due diligence to confirm that various other topics with high page views do use the indefinite article (A) at the start of their short descriptions, in many cases to clarify that exact same issue, with type/category within a greater whole. This way, the definite article (The) is not implied at the start of the SD. This edit was intended as a good-faith, minimal clarification rather than a broader rewrite of the short description. I see from the edit history that several more experienced editors have already worked through differing versions of the short description, so I wanted to set out the rationale rather than leave this small change unexplained. I’m of course happy to discuss or self-revert if others think the prior wording without the article works better. Dance21c (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Multicellularity

The first sentence of this article states that animals are multicellular. This is broadly true, and to my knowledge all animals are multicellular at some point during life, but I'll note that some myxozoans experience a unicellular life phase. This is not really akin to early embryonic development; rather, they experience alternation of generations with a unicellular feeding phase and a multicellular reproductive phase. With this information, should the "multicellular" statement stand? Dysalatornis (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dysalatornis In my opinion, what we consider generations is entirely subjective. Why are egg cells and sperm cells not considered unicellular haploid generations in an otherwise diploid life cycle, the way that pollen grains are unicellular diploid generations in a primarily haploid organism?

But to answer your question, even if the unicellular phase was more relevant than just a gamete, it seems that whenever there is only one generation with multicellularity the taxon is described as multicellular as a whole — Snoteleks (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

+1. If however there were a reliable and significant source that discussed the issue of unicellular life phase as significant for animals explicitly we could add content to the article from that source. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Choanoblastaea

Choanoblastaea is currently listed as a synonym in the taxobox... but is it actually a synonym of Animalia/Metazoa, or even really a formal scientific name for a taxon or clade? As far as I can tell reading the cited paper by Nielsen, it just seems to be a term proposed for a hypothetical ancestor of metazoans and nothing more. If this is actually all it is, it should be removed.

(I would do this myself, but felt I needed a second opinion just in case.)

References

Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and added content to Urmetazoan, please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually I think Haeckel's work is also Urmetazoan. In any case I think this full section should be deleted unless there is a modern English language source to verify it. Otherwise it is only primary sources and no info on the significance of their claims. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, moving choanoblastaea to Urmetazoan sounds good to me! Though I'm not so sure about blanket deleting the rest of the synonyms list tbh, even if you may be right and a more recent source is needed (this is a frequent issue in taxonomy articles all over en.wiki I note, almost all the time "primary" sources are cited for synonyms from my experience). To my understanding, Haeckel's "Metazoa" is very frequently used in cladistics as the name for the animal clade instead of the traditional Linnaean name "Animalia". The rest afaik are just historical and maybe obscure attempts at renaming the animal kingdom that didn't stick and probably aren't going to be cited much in later works. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree on Choanobastaea not being a true synonym, but rather a hypothetical ancestor. Some of the other synonyms are not helpful. For instance, Euanimalia is a taxonomic synonym, in the sense it was a validly used taxon that is no longer in use and Animalia is the closest in the scheme being used. But listing the synonym gives the false impression that Euanimalia and Animalia cover the same group, which they obviously don't. So I agree with removing the synonyms apart from Metazoa, which is sometimes used instead of Animalia so is helpful.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I've restored Metazoa (Haeckel) to the infobox, it is a major synonym. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait Euanimalia and Animalia aren't exact synonyms? Interesting, I will have to look into that context further when I can... I guess when I referred to historical+obscure renaming attempts I was mainly thinking of Gastrobionta, as apparently Werner Rothmaler in that case was also proposing "-bionta" as a standard suffix for names of kingdoms.

In any case, Metazoa clearly is the only synonym worth noting in the taxobox, so this seems good to me now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Euanimalia excludes Porifera, so is equivalent of Eumetazoa (see Barkley, 1949). Both are taxonomic synonyms of Animalia in a system that doesn't use the Parazoa/Eumetazoa split. A full synonym list will include all major historical subdivisions that are no longer used. Have a look at the ASW list for Anura. It's interesting for understanding historical taxonomy of amphibians but not for other names people use for frogs.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC)