Talk:Nematode

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Mid‑importance Nematode is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sanitation Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

The person who keeps on screwing up the Roundworm page is really cool. Replacing legitimate sentences with "asldkja;slkj" blabber. I am glad that creativity & intelligence still runs rampant throughout --Klestrob44 23:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Them's the wonders of government edumacayshkin.

What, I wonder, would be a good way to mention the pop culture presence of nematodes? They occasionally crop up as comedy plague infestations, like gruniun. The most recent example I can think of is a Spongebob Squarepants episode. Kaz 23:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i got flagged for vandalism on this once in this very talk page, So I'll say it again with more words...

So how do we know for certain that they are not telepathic? I think that as it is a significant proposition that can't be refuted it is probably worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Shaped like a penis"!? - Is this vandalism?
ok I guess it was, it is no longer in the article?

LOL, I honestly cannot beleive that some idiot put and i quote"these worms are telopathic". i think thats vandilism and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.221.178 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! It's ludicrous, so I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.103.99 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nematode" might be a less surprising name. Pekinensis 01:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Roundworm is a common name, and I'm not sure why we should prefer an anglicization. Josh

This sort of dispute comes up periodically. There are some guidelines at the Tree of Life project, but I think they're only really followed for birds. For the most part, it's probably not worth arguing about.Dave (talk) 12:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer nematode because I believe it is the more common name, not because it an anglicization, but it is indeed not worth arguing about. — Pekinensis 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know in UK at least nematode is much more common name, i'm studying a biology degree and all my notes and the books I read mention nematodes not roundworms.

I think that both terms could/should be used within the body of the article, but it seems to me that the best approach would be to have the article title be the "official" phylum name Nematoda. As mentioned before, however, it probably isn't that big of a deal either way. Cerealkiller13 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier to see either nematodes or Nematoda at the head of the entry, but I agree that it isn't a huge issue, as long as people can find the information. Myopic Bookworm 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roundworms are triploblastic protostomes

I'm pretty sure they're not tripoblastic, they can consist of many more layers. They're epidermis usually consists of up to 9 layers of fibres, muscles etc. I'm no expert though, should it be changed? Or do these layers in the epidermis still count as an epidermis so still only one layer?

You know what I think about roundworms? They are just plain stupid! How can a worm not be round!!!! lol! -the person who keeps screwing up the roundworm page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.33.147 (talk • contribs) .

Triploblastic refers to the three primary germ layers of the embryo, not to tissue layers in the adult. Triploblastic is the highest count achieved by any animal to date. Hope that answers the question. Cerealkiller13 04:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are confused over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soybean cyst nematode. Is the "egg" in the picture a single egg or a cyst, or something else? Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there needs to be more information on the roundworms' effect on third world countires and their populations, and more specifically Africa.

Why is spongebob mentioned in the trivia? it's hardly relevant to the species at all. nematode have probably been mentioned in TONS of popular media. i think it's not needed. anyone else have any feelings on this? 130.49.4.75 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not needed, and at the same time it really isn't doing a whole lot of harm, as long as it's only a sentence or two and at the end of the article. If you wish to delete the section, by all means feel free to do so. However, keep in mind it'll probably be less than a month before someone replaces it. Cerealkiller13 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and have deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.131.148 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, if Doug gets a mention, why shouldn't Spongebob? BabySinclair 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I think they should both be removed and we should shut up about this whole thing. Adolph172 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Adolph172[reply]

HEY! Put the trivia section back in! Put the SpongeBob reference back in! Of COURSE it is relevant! Do you not understand the concept of what "trivia" is? No, it is not relevant to the actual species the way all the other facts are, but that is the whole point of trivia... it's trivial. Asking for trivia to be significant is like asking for a foghorn to be quiet; you're missing the point completely. More importantly, the whole reason I came here and looked up "nematode" at all is because I watched the SpongeBob episode where they mentioned nematodes, and I thought to myself, "I wonder what that is?" Yes, that really happens. This is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work; you come here to look things up, even if you didn't hear about them in a "proper" way. Get it? Now that you understand why it belongs here, please restore it and stop judging people for not looking things up for reasons you approve of. Sheez. 104.35.137.227 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The nematodes or roundworms (Phylum Nematoda from Greek νῆμα (nema): "thread" + ode "like") are one of the most common phyla of animals," I might be wrong here, but isn't Aschelminthes the Phyla? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.54.244 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is Nematode pronounced "Neh-mah-toad" or "Nee-mah-toad" or something else? --Yvesnimmo 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Pronounced Nee-mah-toad. Adolph172 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)adolph172[reply]

Actually, the audio pronunciation guide at dictionary.com supports a pronunciation closer to "Neh-mah-toad" and both pronunciations are used by scientists who study the nematodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.230.109 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree—in biology pronunciation is always a little wishy-washy. As long as you can spell it like everyone else does, you are OK. Rikku (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a Prevention section to this page. I work for Fleishman-Hillard who represents Bayer Animal Health. We would like to provide users with information regarding how they can protect their pets from nematodes. The text below was copied from some of the other pet disease pages.

Prevention Moxidectin has been re-released in the United States as part of Advantage Multi, which utilizes moxidectin for control and prevention of roundworms, hookworms, heartworms, whipworms, and well as imidocloprid to kill adult fleas.

Preventative drugs are highly effective, and when regularly administered will protect more than 99 percent of dogs from infection. Most failures of protection result from irregular and infrequent administration of the drug. However, the monthly preventives all have a reasonable margin for error in their administration such that if a single month's dose is accidentally missed, adequate protection is usually provided so long as the next two monthly doses are administered on schedule.

68.91.226.241 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is about an entire phylum of animals, and pet parasites only make up a very small fraction of nematodes, I think it would be better to just have that information in those parasites' articles. I would also recommend just giving the basic information without anything that sounds like advertising. For instance, someone else (or possibly you) added something similar to the heartworm page a few days ago. I cut it down to "Moxidectin has been re-released in the United States as part of Advantage Multi, which utilizes moxidectin for control and prevention of roundworms, hookworms, heartworms, whipworms, and well as imidocloprid to kill adult fleas." We don't want to be seen as pushing one product over another, and we also don't want to be giving people medical advice for their pets (e.g. dosing information). Thanks for asking, and let us know if you have any other questions. --Joelmills 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looking at whipworm and hookworm, you already cut out the advertising tone. Great. --Joelmills 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line, "Only the Arthropoda are more diverse" since there are about 60,000 Chordates (according to the Chordate page). That is 3x more than the 20,000 species of Nematode mentioned in this article. Redhookesb 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though there are probably far more nemotodes than we know about - they aren't exactly the most conspicuous animals. Richard001 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References and Robustness sections are just trivia under a different name, which is a violation of wiki policies (this is common in Wiki articles). It should be removed/ worked into the text. Removal is best because it is utterly unimportant to anyone but the cartoon fans who added it.

Trivia Sections aren't against Wikipedia Policies. Maybe you should check the rules before stating falseties --Kurtle (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard (World Facts by Dr James Mackay, ISBN 0-75258-226-7) that the nematode could possibly be the fiery serpents mentioned as a plague in Numbers 21:6-9. I will incorporate this into the article unless someone can find reason otherwise. --MosheA 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard that to.--86.29.245.46 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to add a prevention section-- maybe a treatment page would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.161.3 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i never knew they existed... by the sounds of it i thought it was a mythical creature like the jackalope

24.5.57.90 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)mitch[reply]

Hi, I wonder why the following is written in this article: "Since Cobb was the first to exclude all but nematodes from the group, the valid taxon should be Nemates Cobb 1919 or Nemata Cobb 1919." On which nomenclatural grounds (i.e. article of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) is this assertion made? This is just a personal opinion. There are no rules (for the moment) covering higher taxa in Zoology, so anyone can name his/her pet group as he/she likes. Yours, --Dryas (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style used on this page is very variable and doesn't conform to wikipedia standards. There is a mixture of footnotes and references, and citations are often not to the best sources. I will try to start cleaning up and making things fit the usual wikipedia format- unless there is a reason we have references in footnotes and then a separate unlinked reference section? Any helpers? XCalPab (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

somebody's a joker; first reference is dewey cheatem and howe, the punchline to many a bad joke76.106.28.162 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've resone againt. If I get more over-speen, I'm call it vandarm. --Philcha (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you work in your sandbox instead of in the live article? You can work as you please there, and when you have a revised article you can move it to the mainspace. This leaves the current article untouched and still useful for those seeking immediate nematode information while you perfect your draft. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox is good. But then I'd need the source (mark-up). Oops, my Sandbox is a mess. One at your's, ? --Philcha (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use these:

• User:Philcha/1 Sandbox
• User:Philcha/2 Sandbox

Named to help them float to the top of your list of subpages. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see list of subpages but how do I make a subpage for Nemertea, with all my data ((mark-up)), i.e. no retyping. --Philcha (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your problem is, but if you open the text you want to copy from and the text you want to copy to, at the same time and in separate windows, both of them as EDIT pages, then you can conveniently copy and paste between them without loss of any markups. JonRichfield (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and copied your most recent version of the page into the first sandbox with the wikimarkup. Enjoy. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philcha has passed away due to a brain tumor. I would like to propose that Wikipedians work on improving this article in his honor, since this is the last article he tried to work on. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done to improve the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section talks a lot about Ecdysozoa, but sounds very old-fashioned now and importantly does not reflect well the consensus of the Ecdysozoa main page on wikipedia. It is clear that the phylogenetic consensus overwhelmingly supports ecdysozoa, and the nematode page is not the place to re-run this debate. I note that this section was written quite a while ago now. I suggest that the nematode page just use the term Ecdysozoa without reviewing old controversies. Discuss here if necessary, then I'll try to clean up the section appropriately. Along the same lines the next section on the phylogenetic relationships within the phylum is getting old too "The understanding...as of 2002 is summarised below" and should perhaps be tackled at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XCalPab (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XCalPab (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think cutting the second paragraph in the "Phylogeny" section entirely is probably a good start. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree, glad I'm not alone in this! XCalPab (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRL, I'm going to be doing quite a bit of work on nematode phylo starting in the next couple of months. I'll definitely be working on this article then. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have made some edits since this discussion seems to have been uncontroversial for the last 6 months. The ecdysozoan "debate" is now removed. The best place for this is the ecdysozoa page. The discussion of if the phylum needs to be split stems from a 1997 paper which is not very clear on the topic. This is so old, contradicted by numerous phylogeny studies with enormous amounts of data, all showing a monophyletic phylum that it would not be a reasonable view to place so much attention on a throw-away comment in a 1997 discussion. I have removed these parts and tried to keep things simple and clear. If anyone disagrees with my keep it simple and well-accepted approach it would be best to discuss it here first- its easier to expand arguments and present evidence.

I think that bringing in the very large number of molecular phylogeny studies would help these sections. Also better referencing is needed. I will try to help with this but please jump in also.--XCalPab (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so how big are the worms in the pictures? wouldn't it be nice to have a scale in/under at least one the pcitures? --193.175.206.234 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This top line is not quite correct as it is linking only to one type of infection but there are others as well? This article is about the organism. For the infection, see Ascariasis. Should it rather say: This article is about the organism. For the infection, see soil-transmitted helminthiasis? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I'm responding almost a year late) I changed the link to Helminthiasis rather than soil-transmitted Helminthiasis. The latter doesn't capture all nematode infections, some of which are transmitted by insect bites or eating of infected meat. There is no perfect link here, but Helminthiasis at least includes all the types of nematode infections that we have articles on. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "Nematodes are slender worms: typically approximately 5 to 100 µm thick, and at least 0.1 mm (0.0039 in) but less than 2.5mm long.[31] The smallest nematodes are microscopic, while free-living species can reach as much as 5 cm (2.0 in), and some parasitic species are larger still, reaching over a meter in length." So is it under 2.5mm, or is it over a meter? (It's the latter.) I'll change this myself unless someone can explain why the first quoted sentence makes sense. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it makes sense in context. Reference 31 is referring to soil nematodes, though I would not refer to soil nematodes as "typical nematodes" (I would not refer to any nematodes as typical, as there is no shortage of species of all varieties, such as marine, aquatic, parasitic, etc). The largest nematode is also 8 meters long, which seems like it would have been mentioned there. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unsourced claim was made in the infobox that Chromadorea and Enoplea are disputed classes but I can find no further mention of this anywhere, either in the bulk of the article (where I rescued a class for the infobox) or in the articles alluded to. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enoplea has been argued to possibly be a polyphyletic taxon [1], but I don't see anyone arguing for its removal from the nomenclature. I can find no evidence in the literature that Chromadorea is disputed. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree we shouldnt remove either, it is just the tags I have removed. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understood what you said. Just trying to let you (or any other lurkers) know that I looked into the claims these taxa are disputed and found them wanting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the trivia section being there (although I am not a great fan of it), but it would still need to be properly referenced, otherwise I would say it should be deleted. EvMsmile (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nematode. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/nematodes-roundworms-of-man/xk923bc3gp4/99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027152335/http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=2 to http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nematode's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Anderson":

• From Pest control: Anderson, Emma (9 June 2015). "Farmer poisoned 24 animals in bid to kill wolf". The Local. Retrieved 29 August 2017.
• From Halicephalobus gingivalis: R. C. Anderson; K. E. Linder; A. S. Peregrine (1998). "Halicephalobus gingivalis (Stefanski, 1954) from a fatal infection in a horse in Ontario". Parasite. 5 (3): 255–261. doi:10.1051/parasite/1998053255. PMID 9772725.
• From Amphibian: Anderson, J.; Reisz, R.; Scott, D.; Fröbisch, N.; Sumida, S. (2008). "A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders". Nature. 453 (7194): 515–518. Bibcode:2008Natur.453..515A. doi:10.1038/nature06865. PMID 18497824.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Came to this article specifically looking for information on their lifespan. Saw a video in which the person claimed they live only hours and would like to verify. Unfortunately, the article has nothing along those lines, unless I missed it. Unschool 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The parasitism section seems to be missing some sort of verification of information. At the moment, the section on Myrmeconema neotropicum and Lasioglossum zephyrus paragraphs seem to be properly cited, but the paragraphs on human parasites and fig wasp parasitism seem to lack sources. The human parasites paragraph links specific species, and I imagine that a lot of the sources needed can be found there, but the fig wasp paragraph lacks any specific information or citations. None of this is marked for missing citations, but I'd imagine the fig wasps bit needs SOMETHING. I'd be happy to track those down, but I'm also new to the editing side of Wikipedia and wanted to check in before I made any sorts of changes.

LanceJAndrew (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]