Talk:Flatworm

Does anyone have examples of flatworms that have multiple openings to their guts (as is referred to in the page)? --Mperkins 03:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This should probably be incorporated into an external link at some point. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/video/tv_high.html?ep_hunt_explo2_mov_hi 06:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Done. But what exactly is the point of the video? Since when does Wikipedia link to videos?Dragix 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Dragix

In acoelomate flatworms, now thought to be unrelated to the Platyhelminthes... --unsigned comment

:What? Aren't they the same thing? I think this needs changing. --unsigned comment

::Josh corrected this on 01:36, 2006 January 7. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 09:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

New species of flatworm found: Imogine lateotentare. They have an interesting way of reproduction.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/what-lurks-beneath--fleshsucking-sex-fiends/2006/01/20/1137734154394.html

Since I'm not into this kinda stuff I'll leave it up to others if this actually needs mentioning and if so, how to go about it.

--Mais

Is it pronounced "platyhelminteez" or "platyhelmintheez"? Twilight Realm 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The latter. Cerealkiller13 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

''like all other animals, flatworms do

I may be wrong, but I thought adult cestodes (and many other gut-dwelling animals) were effectively anaerobic.

:That looks very likely, but the sources I've seen, including my main textbooks, don't say so. If you know a source, that would be good news. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Does ANYONE know what flatworms eat? I've been trying for ages to find out, and I was a bit dissapointed to not find the answer under the feeding section. Egregius 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I read on www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html, that flatworms eat other small worms, insects, and microscopic matter.- Erika

Platyhelminthes use flame cells for excretion. Perhaps that would be a nice addition to the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.236.121.153 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Is the type of worm that fences with its penis really called Hancockanus? Or is that some sort of sick, perverted, joke?66.157.207.150 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)ShokuMasterLord

:It's had that name since 1876. I presume that someone named Hancock was being honored by the name, and it may well be that the name was applied before the behavior was observed. -- Donald Albury 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just been given a book for my birthday, about marine life, called "The Deep" (Margaret Keenan, Taj Books, 2007).

The page on flatworms starts:

:The flatworms (Phylum Platyhelminthes, Greek "platy": flat; "helminth": worm) are a phylum of relatively simple soft-bodied invertebrate animals. With about 25,000 known species they are the largest phylum of acoelomates. Flatworms are found in marine, freshwater, and even damp terrestrial environments. A troublesome terrestrial example is the New Zealand flatworm, Arthurdendyus triangulatus, which rapidly colonized large areas of Ireland and Scotland since its unintentional introduction in the 1960s and has since destroyed most of the indigenous earthworms.[citation needed] Most flatworms are free-living, but many are parasitic. There are four classes: Trematoda (flukes), Cestoda (tapeworms), Monogenea, and Turbellaria.

This is an almost exact copy of the Wiki text, and they didn't even remove the [citation needed] tag! (The citation was added to the Wiki article on 14:49, 24 July 2007 Rursus).

I have subsequently checked several of the articles in the book, and they were all almost word-for-word copies of the Wiki articles of the same name. (And more importantly: I checked the article histories and found that the copied text was older than the publication date of the book).

I'll send this info to Wikipedia's copyright team shortly (and possibly to the book's publishers as well). Wardog (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:Note that as all text in Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, anyone may freely copy and modify the text, even for commercial purposes. The book may be in violation of the terms of the GFDL in that all GFDL-licensed material copied and/or modified must also be made available under the GFDL, i.e., the book must state clearly that the material is licensed under the GFDL. -- Donald Albury 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These look useful: --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_jLl8zIRzucC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=Platyhelminthes+synapomorphy&source=web&ots=MvFSsNhqeH&sig=lIF3DH4o8h_jBUR5TI0nCZIw2Kg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA210,M1 Assembling the Tree of Life] (2004) pp 210-223 classification, phylogeny, disting features.
• [http://www.springerlink.com/content/x21207975w183712/ Comments on a phylogenetic system of the Platyhelminthes] (2004)
• [http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ctz;sid=fab7f67a77a5f39f0d7ea3f0dde26eb1;idno=m7301a01;view=text;rgn=div1;cc=ctz;node=m7301a01%3A7 Comparing alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for the ‘acoelomate’ worm] (Contributions to Zoology, vol 73, issue 1-2, 2004)
• [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3746/is_199812/ai_n8818711/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 Are platyhelminthes coelomates without a coelom?] (American Zoologist, Dec 1998)
• [http://devbio.umesci.maine.edu/styler/globalworming/platyhelm2003.html Platyhelminthes - The nature of a controversial phylum](2003) (2003)
• [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119828743/abstract The interrelationships of all major groups of Platyhelminthes: phylogenetic evidence from morphology and molecules] (2008) -"Denser sampling of taxa for molecular data, complementary sequences from independent genes, and inclusion of additional morphological data are necessary to resolve these contradictions"
• [http://www.springerlink.com/content/t2821j1764375356/ Aspects of the phylogeny of Platyhelminthes based on 18S ribosomal DNA and protonephridial ultrastructure](2004)
• [http://devbio.umesci.maine.edu/styler/globalworming/platyhelm.htm Platyhelminthes and Acoelomorpha - phyla of controversy] (2004)
• [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7188/full/nature06614.html Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life] (Nature, 2008)
• [http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Bilateria.htm Palaeos: Bilateria-1] "combined" cladogram, refs
• [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DMBkmHm5fe4C&pg=PA288&dq=Platyhelminthes#PPA288,M1 On the Origin of Phyla] (Valentine, 2004)
• [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xvk-yrjXH70C&pg=PA194&dq=Platyhelminthes&lr= The Diversity of Living Organisms] (Barnes; 1998) - "defined more by what they do not have"
• [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109629713/abstract The dawn of bilaterian animals: the case of acoelomorph flatworms] - phylogeny (Jaume Baguñà , Marta Riutort, 2004)
• [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119828743/abstract The interrelationships of all major groups of Platyhelminthes: phylogenetic evidence from morphology and molecules] (1998)
• [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119029924/abstract Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences] Kevin J. Peterson and Douglas J. Eernisse (2001)
• [http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ctz;cc=ctz;rgn=main;view=text;idno=m7301a01 Towards a phylogeny of the Metazoa: evaluating alternative phylogenetic positions of Platyhelminthes, Nermertea, and Gnathostomulida, with a critical reappraisal of cladistic characters] RA Jenner (2004)

Editors, the lead is very big, can this be shortened? see WP:LEAD. Bluptr (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a technical template to the page, because the discussion of classification in the lead section is highly confusing, particularly for a broad audience. I would suggest condensing the explanation and leaving the details for the body of the article CameronNemo (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

{{Talk:Flatworm/GA1}}

{{Talk:Flatworm/GA3}}

Does anyone have evidence or citations for the claims in the posted statement:

''The threat of platyhelminth parasites to humans in developed countries is rising because of organic farming, the popularity of raw or lighty-cooked foods, and imports of meat, sea food and salad vegetables from high-risk areas."

To me this statement infers negligence towards public health on the part of organic farming that seems out line with my understanding organic farming practice. Given that organic farming predates what we have come to now call conventional farming, one would not only have to accept that the intent of conventional farming was primarily to prevent human disease (instead of other more prevalent reasons like boosting crop yields with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides), but also that returning to organic farming is to willfully depart from this lofty ambition.

Don't get me wrong, that isn't to say that there is some underlaying logic to justify the statement. If conventional farming practice has managed to reduce the risk of platyhelminth parasitesto humans, then returning to organic farming may call a return to the risk - then again, it may not if you consider our more increased understanding of food handling and preparation since the rise of conventional farming. Who's to say? Where is the evidence? The statement needs support to uphold this logic.

Without including the evidence or a citation to support this statement as it is currently worded basically amounts to opinion and without the objective detachment of scientific evidence, or even a disclaimer of supposition, it exposes this scientific article to the politics of heated public debate over organic vs conventional.

Frankly, I (obviously) have strong opinions on the subject of organic farming and I took offense to the statement - a scientific article shouldn't offend me and get me all fired up. Heck, I was trying to learn about worms so I can better understand vermi-composting, not looking for debate. If the statement has scientific backing, please include it.

Thanks.

Moose Meat Stew (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:The refs are in the article, are from impeccable sources, and are freely available online. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my aim is not to criticize credibility, so much as it is to suggest that the current incarnation of this article does not making it easy for the reader to investigate the source for this particular assertion against organic farming, and thereby determine the context from which the statement was drawn, due to the lack of a direct and specific citation which requires the reader to wade through a list of twenty-five references, five further readings, and six external links for more information. I'd be more than happy to review the source to draw my own conclusions around organic farming and parasitic risks if only someone were able to provide assistance in narrowing down where the idea came from since I have little desire to become a subject matter expert on the complete biology of flatworms.

At the risk of beleaguering the point, when reading the statement through the lens of "pro-organic", the suggestion that organic farming increases threat of parasitic flatworm infection makes as much sense to me as if I were to suggest there were is an increased risk in ankle injury due to walking. I know for a fact that people have been walking for a long time and that this practice in and of itself should not increase injury risk over what it has been at some point during walking history. My statement would be down right inflammatory if referenced as a reason why people should get back in their cars instead of walking. Organic farming was all there was long before the invention of pesticides, we just didn't have any need to call it anything other than farming at that time. The statement suggests to me that if we were to revert to only organic farming that parasitic flatworm infestations would rise unchallenged as there is no mechanism in organic practices to deal with it. That seems narrow-sighted.

Without the details to frame this otherwise anti-organic comment, or at least specific citation to explore for those of us so piqued, there is a risk that this (probably innocent) statement could be misused in contexts outside of the scope of this article. My imagination conjures up someone out there citing this article to support the outlandish claim that organic produce will give you worms. I'm merely suggesting that with the aim of objectivity, either the idea be expanded to include the details, the wording be reconsidered, or the source for that specific assertion be indicated directly at the end of the sentence for the benefit of the reader.

I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion. Moose Meat Stew (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:Most Wikipedia articles don't use extensive references in the lead. If you look in the body, at Flatworms#Parasitism, you'll see clearly that the reference is the Northrop-Clewes paper, which has a section on the perils of organic farming. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction (and you patience). I apologize if my understanding of the referencing practice in the lead is a bit novice.

I have (now) read the Northrop-Clewes paper section about "the hidden menace" of organic farming. They are absolutely correct in that spraying feces on your field will make you sick by spreading all sorts of baddies. Unfortunately their broad-stroked swipe at organic farming neglects some key points.

:1. Properly composting manure kills most pathogens and parasites through the heat generated by composting. Infections would be more likely from improperly composted or handled manure than the simple fact of it's use.

:2. Spreading of manure is not isolated to organic farming and organic farming does not have to depend on manure. The two are not codependent. I live in a rural community and can attest to the fact that non-organic farmers still spread manure.

Although they didn't delve into it, Northrop and Clewes actually touch on the problem in the header of the passage itself. "The organic food revolution in industrialized countries -the hidden menace" alludes to the fact that an improper marriage of organic and industrial practice can create problems. Unfortunately, the passage seems to promptly takes a tone against organic farming and carries this position though the article going so far as attacking organic farming as "turning back the pages of history" and it even makes a call to ones senses as an argument. I mean, really, come on. Can the fact that manure stinks be a scientific argument against it? I don't see anyone perfuming their house with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic practices do not all come from the days of lore and can, with some ingenuity and creativity, be adapted to the demands of industrial output. While Northrop and Clews do make a point about manure as a potential carrier, I can hardly consider their passage a definitive account of organic practice.

There is a good book by Michael Pollan called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that covers the implications of industrial food production, organic food production, and the practice of hunting and gathering. It goes a long way to exposing some harsh misconceptions about how we grow, gather, transport, think and feel about our food as well as exploring the impact our efforts have on both the environment and our communities. He exposes some prime examples of where organic meets industrial and shows where it works and where it doesn't. If you have some time and the interest, it is a great read.

May I suggest that the passages regarding organic farming in this article be reworded somehow. Blaming organic farming simply carries over whatever sentiment Northrop and Clewes hold against organic farming. I don't think the idea of manure as a carrier is without merit, but perhaps this article should simply addresses the use of improperly prepared manure-based fertilizers as it would be more scientifically complete and less biased while side stepping the entire organic-industrial debate (and the likes of people like me) altogether.

Thanks.Moose Meat Stew (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

:I've avoided the more extreme wording of some sources and simply noted that there's a problem. It's been known for at least a century that using human feces as fertiliser spreads internal parasites - AFAIK Victorian public sanitation saved at least as many lives as Victorian medicine. How the spreading of parasites might be dealt with should be covered in Organic farming or possibly Public health. A strategy that occurs to me is thorough composting before muck-spreading, as the heat at the centre of a large mass of compost kills most small organisms as well as weeds and their seeds; and the compost would have to be enclosed, to prevent seagulls and other foragers from transmitting unkilled parasites. If / when the issue is covered at Organic farming or wherever, I'd be very happy to incorporate into Flatworm a very brief note on this and a "Further information" tag linking to the appropriate section of Organic farming or wherever. --Philcha (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to resolve this issue. Let's invoke fair use and paste the authors passage concerning organic farming as the article is not freely available for discussion.

::The organic food revolution in industrialized countries -

::the hidden menace

::In parallel with increasing public anxiety over the emergence of

::genetically-modified foods in industrialised countries has been a trend

::towards ever increasing public demand for organically-grown produce.

::In commercial response, most, if not all, of the major food retailers in

::the UK have now a stated policy of removal of genetically-modified

::foods from their shelves with an increase in capacity for organic

::produce. While such trends may appear to be eco-friendly on face value,

::there are potential hidden dangers for consumers. Over the past 20

::years, the use of artificial fertilisers on farmland to facilitate an intensive

::agriculture focused on the rapid production of uniform products for

::mass consumption has led to a massive reduction in the use of organic

::manures on the land. During the same time period, intensive usage of

::anthelmintics in domestic livestock for the same purpose of maximising

::productivity has led to massive reductions in parasite burdens. Taking

::both factors into account, one can see the reason for the virtual elimination

::of parasitic disease as a major clinical problem in industrialised

::countries. However, changing practices for economic or social reasons can

::provide parasites with new opportunities for transmission which they will

::exploit with gusto. After all, this is what evolution has gifted parasites to

::do. While little evidence exists of the nutritive benefits of organic produce,

::the change from the relative sterility of inorganic farming to an organic

::culture system may turn back the pages of history to the time when

::parasitic disease in the population was the norm. After all, it is a fact that

::under natural conditions, all vertebrates (including man) are probably

::universally infected with at least one helminth parasite - is this really to

::where we wish to return? How many of us who live in the countryside or

::who drive through such en route to our places of employment have not

::been subjected to mighty olfactory attack as farmers spread 'muck' on

::their fields? Such spreadings usually have large flocks of attendant gulls,

::many of which defecate over a wide area including in our parks, playing

::fields and reservoirs. The factors are thus already in place for the

::resurgence of helminth parasitic disease - one can be sure that it remains

::a matter of when, rather than if, this will occur.

Secondly, let's analyze what, if any proof is presented therein for the claim being made herein...that's right there is no actual emperically based research being cited to bolster this authors OPINION. The claims of these authors with regards organic farming rest on data that does not exist. It is no wonder that this article has only been cited 8 times in 10 years, it's fringe. 141.39.166.159 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)talonx

:It's in British Medical Bulletin, i.e. in a reliable source. If you can produce good sources stating that organic farming does not increase risk of parasites, cite them and we have a debate that the article needs to summarise. Until then, the text stays as is. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I recomend a purge of all claims relating to the shaw article (currently citation number 20). 141.39.166.159 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Talonx

:Not going to happen. If you wish to contest the points that are based on Northrop-Clewes and Shaw (2000) [http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/56/1/193.pdf "Parasites"] you will have to find at least one good source that presents opposing views - see WP:Vand Philcha (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In many literature I find it written as "Plathelminthes", without the "y". I include it in the first paragraph, if there´s no problem with it. --Feministo (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Domain Eukarya isn't required here. It just clutters up the infobox. 78.151.23.110 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

The table seems to be making the page look messed up, but I have no idea as to how I can fix it. Could someone care to fix it please? Thanks! Devrit 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind i managed to fix it myself thanks anyways Devrit 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It had long been recognized that this classification was artificial, and in 1985 Ehlers[9] proposed a phylogenetically more correct classification where the massively polyphyletic "Turbellaria" was split into a dozen orders, and Trematoda, Monogenea and Cestoda were joined in the new order Neodermata. However, the classification presented here is the early, traditional, classification, as it still is the one used everywhere except in scientific articles.[3]

Isn't this about the opposite of what we are supposed to do on wikipedia? If we were writing this encyclopedia on vellum in the XVII century, would we say that the Sun revolves around the Earth because heliocentrism is something that is only found in scientific books?? My question is: can I fix the taxonomy, or am I going to be instantly reverted by some well-meaning pest that thinks I confuse children and geezers that studied before the discovery of DNA? complainer (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

:I agree with you. The classification should be presented in its current form. A section or paragraph talking about the old classification in four classes would be necessary, but the current, phylogenetic classification is the most important. Piterkeo (talk) 16:04, 02 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi all,

There seems to be an error in the infobox. It says "Unrecognised rank: Unrecognised rank: Phylum- Invertebrates". Did someone edit the template? It doesn't seem to just be on this page. Anyway, I'm not really experienced with template editing, so I'll leave it for one of you fine fellows.

Thanks,

Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
• hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
• JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
• REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
• http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
• SEE ALSO:
• http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com

--Gary Dee 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Flatworm. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=730917338 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216220933/http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/cosam/departments/biology/faculty/webpages/zzhalanych/Pub.pdfs/Halanych2004.pdf to http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/cosam/departments/biology/faculty/webpages/zzhalanych/Pub.pdfs/Halanych2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:

27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(Pardon my jokey title, but, I've a question; I'm not a person who really knows much about flatworms, but, this seems to be incongruous

In the 2nd paragraph is the foloowing sentence; ...since the turbellarians have since been proven not to be monophyletic, this classification is now deprecated....', but, shortly below is the following sentence: '...The remaining Platyhelminthes form a monophyletic group..

Isn't this contradictory? Just wondering...[[User:UNOwenNYC

:There is no contradiction at all. Turbellarians are not monophyletic because the parasitic flatworms evolved from them. "The remaining Platyhelminthes" is not the same as "turbellarians". Historically the flatworms were divided in 4 groups: Turbellaria (Acoela, Nemertodermatida, Catenulida, Polycladida, Tricladida, Macrostomida, Rhabdocoela, Prolecithophora, Lecithoepitheliata, Proseriata), Cestoda, Trematoda and Monogenea. This classification is deprecated because Turbellaria is not monophyletic. The phylogenetic classification includes two groups: Catenulida and Rhabditophora (Polycladida, Tricladida, Macrostomida, Rhabdocoela, Prolecithophora, Lecithoepitheliata, Proseriata, Cestoda, Trematoda and Monogenea). And Acoela and Nemertodermatida are not flatworms at all. — Piter Keo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

According to a recent molecular study, flatworms originated 839 million years ago.

OP-MOLB150055 835..845 (silverchair.com) PhiPedia (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:That date sounds erroneous, as animals had not yet diverged from sponges. That, and the fossil range is for the age of the earliest fossils, not molecular evidence.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)