Talk:Starfish/Archive 1

Sea star vs starfish

Beginning this page with "the talking sea star(more correctly known as sea stars as they are only very distantly related to fish)...", though literally true, inadvertently gives the impression that there actually is a closer relation between starfish and fish than there really is. Saying members of two different phyla are related at all is senseless unless you're referring to the relationship that all living things share in a common ancestry. They are probably less "related" to fish than we are to insects. I think I would mind it less if one were to say about seahorses that they are "only very distantly related to horses" because there's not chance for confusion. But in the layman's mind, often all "seafood" are some kind of fish. Why perpetuate the ignorance? I suggest changing this sentence to" "Starfish (more correctly known as sea stars as they are not related to fish)". PSF--207.59.160.2 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This page was earlier at sea star, and claimed that starfish was an incorrect synonym. These things aren't fish, but that doesn't make the term incorrect as such - compare with jellyfish. Also, the terms differ slightly in scope - starfish is sometimes used to include brittle stars, and sea star isn't - but I guess this difference isn't quite so common as I thought. I think starfish is the more common term, so I've moved the page here, but even if it isn't, it shouldn't be called wrong. are sea stars vetebrates are invertebrates?because i have to do a school project and ur page dont tell me -love always- me!!!!!!!!!!!

Well if you go to an aquarium they're careful to call them seastars" and "jellies". We should at the very least note in the article that they're not fish. -- Loren

)

To those who defend the name seastar and protest, "but they aren't fish!": recall that neither are they stars. We are complicit in misnomer.

Along with this, jellyfish are not only not fish, but they are not jelly either. Also, a koala bear isn't a bear.

They aren't astronomical stars, but they are geometric stars.

Marine biologists consider "starfish" a deprecated name. Of course, it is a common name, and therefore should *be in wikipedia, but redirected to "sea star", not the other way around. Using "sea star" consistently in the article would also be good. You can argue whether the deprecation is silly, but it is real. Let's make the official name "sea star" (assuming we don't want Asteroidea). It makes the biologists happier, and doesn't upset the average person too much. user:nereocystis 22 Nov, 2004.

"fish" used to refer to many creatures which live in the water, which is probably the source for starfish. This use of "fish" is uncommon today, and is another argument for preferring "sea star" over "starfish". From 1913 Webster:

A name loosely applied in popular usage to many animals of diverse characteristics, living in the water. "Starfish" may be more common then "sea star" and "seastar", according to a google search, but "sea star" should be used.

It seems that the comments on this page prefer "sea star". Would anyone seriously object to making this the standard? user:nereocystis 3 Dec 2004.

I expect to change "starfish" to "sea star" in one week, unless there is objection. Nereocystis 09:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Now does anyone object to moving the article to 'sea star' and have 'starfish' redirect to 'sea star'? Nereocystis 01:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google test: Sea star gets 11,900,000; starfish only gets 1,240,000. Tony Jin 04:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sea star gets 11 900 000 without quotation marks, but by the 600th entry or so there are pages that don't mention the two words together. "Sea star" gets 195 000, and "sea stars" gets 84 500, considerably less than "starfish".

However, sea star is still preferred among scientists as a common name. I should provide a reference on this, but I don't have it yet. That is why many of us prefer sea star. There are 143,000 seastar references in google.Nereocystis 23:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Preferred among scientists? I love it when folks make up their own facts to bolster their argument. A search on PubMed reveals this not to be the case.

Sea star vs starfish revisited

Scientists are well within their rights to redefine scientfic terms as they see fit but for an encyclopaedia to try tell me (and millions of others, see Google) that a word is "wrong" and that I should use another, is ludicrous.

I would like to see this issue brought back up for discussion. The Oxford English Dictionary makes the point that it are not in the business of defining the language but recording it. Is wikipedia's role so different? I would like to suggest a rewriting. The redirect from starfish to sea star is disturbing in that it feels like one is being, figuratively speaking, slpped on the hand. I also find it odd that the page is spotted with both terms and that the Resources section seems to point to sites that primarily use either starfish or Asteroidea.

When did it become so important that common names be scientifically accurate? Why have starfish been singled out? Are we now expected to move on and rename other animals and plants? What about shellfish? Shouldn't we at least point out that sea stars are not stars? It seems odd that we're worried about what some marine biologists may think but not what astronomers (or mathematicians, if you wish to follow that ridiculous geometry argument) think. Sorry, bad joke. But isn't this whole issue a bit silly?

A minority have decided we shouldn't use a word any longer. Why? Are they scared that the younger generation are too stupid to understand biological differences? What would be the logical result if we followed this path? Are we to rid our language of simile and metaphor and generalisations? Do all common names have to be literal? Isn't it actually a nice experience telling a child (or even an adult) that a banana is not from a tree or that pandas are not bears or that killer whales are actually dolphins? We do so not to 'disabuse' them of their ignorance but for simply fun. Let us defeat this misguided attack on the language. 1bj05hua (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well it looks like someone wasn't using his noodle. When I wrote the above comments I had no idea that the name had only just been changed a matter of days before. What's more it was tagged as a minor edit. So it looks like I stumbled in here, looked a round, didn't notice the very recent change (to sea star) and assumed that there was some reasonable discussion to be had about fixing the page. Boy was I wrong. Not only was the first move marked up as a minor edit but then someone else comes by straight after my comments and changes it back, again as a minor edit. What is going on here?1bj05hua (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing short of amazing to me and exactly the sort of thing that folks correctly (unfortunately) point to when decrying wikipedia. Were we to let majority rule, we might well give up on evolution, at least in some countries. This is a clear case where scientists use one term that differs from the vast majority of common use. So who decides? The folks who write invertebrate zoology and other scientific texts (who use 'seastar'), or those who write popular texts (and use 'starfish'). Is this a science article? Anyone in favor of siding with the scientists? So, as soon as I figure out how to do it I'll change it to seastar once and once only. Before you change it back please do me one favor: do a google 'book search' for each term, and stick with the one that yields the larger number of science texts. CheersDmccabe (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK; failed to do the move. I requested a move instead.Dmccabe (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears the decision was to move to 'sea star', and there was no decision to move back, I've moved it to 'sea star' again. When there are two common names for a thing, and one is ambiguous or misleading, the standard approach is to use the less misleading term. For instance, horned lizard rather than horny toad—the latter is the more common term, but is dispreferred by herpetologists for being misleading. Also, assuming the unchallenged statement that 'starfish' includes brittle stars, which this article does not cover, is correct, then there's also the fact that 'starfish' is inaccurate as well as misleading. BTW, I grew up saying 'starfish', and that's still the word I use (just as I use 'horny toad'), but I recognize that an encyclopedia should be based on a higher standard. kwami (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least standardise the spelling, the article contains both "sea star" and "sea-star". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmot and gilad (talk • contribs) 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is inconsistency between this main article on Asteroidea, and articles on individual sea star species, such as the Ochre Sea Star and the Giant Sea Star, for example. This article refers to them as 'starfish' yet individual articles refer to them as 'sea stars'. I believe that either the individual species of sea stars be changed to names such as 'Ochre Starfish' and 'Giant Starfish' (and refer to them as such throughout their own articles) or that the main article itself have all references to 'starfish' changed to 'sea star' to avoid inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.223.12 (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am more concerned that what is said in Wikipedia on a subject is consistent. Which of two widely used alternate names we use is less important, especially as redirects help people find the article they want, whichever form of the name is used. And I am fond of what Emerson had to say on consistency. -- Donald Albury 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Geological history

Added the ==Geological history== text from an article I originally in 1998 and published it on the Web....

Dlloyd 00:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is ITIS authoritative?

The ITIS, which I suppose is authoritative, classifies Asteroidea as a subclass of the class Stelleroidea, so I adjusted the taxonomy to reflect this. k.lee 03:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ITIS isn't necessarily authoritative, so things shouldn't be changed to match it. In this particular case, it looks like it doesn't match the system us$f.15+d.801$ed here and in various other places, since it either doesn't recognize the class Concentricycloidea or refers to it by a very different name. Accordingly, I'm reverting the change.

Sunstars?

No mention of sunstars, genus solaster. Phyllaplysia mention them in passing as a predator. Interesting since they violate the pentagonal symmetry ( or did I blink and miss a reclassification )--Shoka 21:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A picture of a sunstar would be great, they are very beautiful animals. The picture could have an accompanying note about symmetry. However, I don't know where to get un-copyrighted animal pictures, so I'll just have to wait for someone else... Citizen Premier 13:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

the pink thorned star fish

la pinco spike fish

Class: brittle star found: 04:30, 14 january 1982

Class: Asteroidea--located is not the scientific name of the animal but the group in which it belongs.... Valserian (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

How about adding this image to the main article:

Looks like somebody did. I made it into a thumb so it wouldn't skew the page. Citizen Premier 06:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

the sea stars and the fishers

I've heard the story a few times of the fishermen who, for some reason, felt that the native starfish were impeding on their harvest, and so they began a policy of cutting all the starfish they found into half and throwing them back in the sea. According to the tale, this effectively doubled the starfish population. Is this story based on actual events or just an allegory for when trying to abolish something actually makes it stronger? Citizen Premier 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Did some investigation on Google to attempt to clarify the section on reproduction. Came across reports of species under controlled conditions in aquarium actually losing about half an arm, by a process of autotomy with the original star surviving happily, and repeating the process, while the severed arms developed into further complete starfish. So at least some species actually use this as a method of asexual reproduction.

• The reports you mention may or may not be allegory, its not at all clear that all stars can do this, but the ability to re form from severed parts is clearly within the capability of some species, and thus your tale is at least potentially based on reality.--Shoka 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

info for the taking

My old bio project on this topic is at User:Stellertony/Notepad/Sea_star; I don't know how much, if any, of it would be useful and I don't have time to delve through it all right now, but feel free to take anything out of it that would be useful for this page (or any other). Stellertony the Bookcrosser 09:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer. I'll look.--Shoka 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted to identify image

Could anyone help by identifying the species shown in these images uploaded to Commons? William Avery 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Right way up

Turned over

It's Asterias amurensis, the echinoderm that notoriously invaded Australian waters (they are native of Northeastern Pacific, in the seas of Japan and Russia). Make sure that no one misidentify this species with other native Australian sea stars. For more information, click here: Asterias amurensis

Best Regards, Pentapod 16:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

edit: I found a Wikipedia article about this species, so you will be able to place the picture at the correct place by now. Here: Northern Pacific seastar

Thank you. I took a little while to get back to this! William Avery 13:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Preditors?

Superficially it seems like stars would make easy prey. What defense mechanisms do they have and who are their preditors?

I second this request. Information on their defenses and predators is needed. I just saw a TV show that showed king crab grazing on starfish (tearing off limbs but not killing). --72.194.126.236 (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lifespan?

Any idea of average lifespan ?

well lets assume this shall we, it obivously can grow back arm so it cant die from getting old or brittle. it would seem that a starfish can live for between 20-50 years. depending on the surrondings and all that jazz!

Requested move - 2007

This article has been renamed from sea star to starfish as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Sea star → Starfish — this move was done about 1.5 years ago, without consulting WP:RM. The name "sea star" seems to be a new term in order to correct the fact that a starfish is not actually a fish; however, it's not nearly the most common term: google gets 6 mil. hits for starfish: [1], and sea star gets under 1 million: [2]. It seems, by the arguments used above, that this new term has been created by aquariums, who also don't use the term jellyfish (!) because it's etymologically wrong. We don't want to create our own terms, simply because a word is more etymologically correct; this is the argument currently being used to move homophobia to the horrid neologism misohomo. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nom. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Come on this article is about starfish... It may not be an accurate name but it is the one most used. The entymological problems with the name can be discussed in the article, but using the most common name for something is clearly required by WP:NAME. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Joie de Vivre 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. These type of "concerted efforts" to change names because of perceived incorrectness can get ridicuclous. Yes, a starfish is may not be a fish but it's not a star either so the concerned parties had better look for a new name. If that's not persuasive enough, go look at Fish#What_is_a_fish.3F and you'll see that there's actually no such thing as a fish (or a zebra or Washington, D.C. or a sea or many other things that we assume exist nut don't but that still have Wikipedia articles) so calling it a starfish can't really be incorrect. When the name "sea star" actually attains predominant usage, then that title will be appropriate. —  AjaxSmack  09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per WP:COMMONNAME. --Kusunose
6. Support --Yath 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support absolutely no basis for having it at this non-name at all. Lots of common words have component parts referring to other words that aren't correct. Sea lions aren't lions, sea horses aren't horses, and so forth and so on. "Sea star" is just ridiculous. Shame on the ridiculous people who came up with it and shame on the people who put this article at the nonstandard name. Victrix 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. I'd never even heard of "sea star", and the OED simply describes "sea star" as "a starfish". As already pointed out, move to starfish is legitimately in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Greg 08:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Most common English usage, according to WP naming convention. The intro line requires the term sea star in bold as well, of course. In my own Dutch language, the only term is 'zeester' which means literally sea star, but that does not count here. Dutch too has biologically incorrect words, like 'walvis', whale fish which is the mammal simply called whale in English. Don't fight the language. — SomeHuman 23 Jan2007 16:28 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose. There is a concerted effort within marine biology to change the title from starfish to sea star. The majority of the books I have with publication dates in the last five years refer to "starfish or sea stars" of simply sea stars. The redirect from Starfish is sufficient.--Shoka 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   But this is precisely the problem. Wikipedia reports on knowledge, but it doesn't go along with trends until they equal or overcome previous trends. We report on the most common word now, not the way that the biologists think it should be. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. If we're going by common terms, then flatulence should be moved to farting as "farting" is a much more common term for it than "flatulence" and also should not claim that humans are apes in the ape article, as the common usage of the term "ape" excludes humans and only includes the nonhuman hominoids. Saying that humans are apes is like saying the Japanese are Caucasians, it's simply wrong by definition. sea star is much more common than the odd terms misohomo which only gets fifteen Google hits. Voortle 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Go with scientific consensus. Redirect starfish here, and educate those who wish to do research. The editor who used this to justify his "misohomo" nonsense did so without understanding the glaring ways in how these two situations differ. CaveatLector^Talk 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Starfish has always been redirected here, from when this page was renamed to Sea star originally.. The redirect page titles the link Starfishes to differentiate from the six other unrelated meanings of starfish.--Shoka 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose Sea star is a better name, and is common enough that it isn't out of left field. 132.205.44.134 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Counting Google hits is not very helpful. Starfish is used in a lot of contexts other than the marine organism, see the redirect page for starfish for example, so it's hard to select only relevant hits. Conversely, "sea star" and seastar are probably less ambiguous. Further, though the class name of sea star is encouraged, the common names of species such as Asterias rubens remains "the common starfish" so generate even more misleading hits.

Note that in older publications cushion-stars are not usually listed as starfish but appear in their own grouping.

In modern usage they are included in the class asteroidea, common name sea star. The class being described in the article.--Shoka 00:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Since we must have this article editorially vandalised I can't raise the energy to fight the vandel fight. Off my watchlist --Shoka 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bipinaria/larva

Isn't the larva called Bipinaria? - 01:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pluteus?

The end of the first paragraph links to pluteus, which is a kind of mushroom, not the larval form of the sea star. Could someone who knows what's up clarify? -- Joshua BishopRoby 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

starfish

how long do they live for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.232.157.71 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

See here or here. θnce θn this island ^Speak! 22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

A starfish arm can only regenerate into a whole new organism if some of the central ring of the starfish is part of the chopped off arm.

Most species must have the central part of the body intact to be able to regenerate, but a few can grow an entire starfish from a single ray.

I don't know which is correct, but they can't both be...Dave.Dunford 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Plateas comment. When you click on it at the end of the first paragraph, it goes to a kind of mushroom! what is up with that? mushroom have nothing to do with starfish.

This is probably a result of bad editting or a hyperlink problem.

I'm trying to write a report, and I dont feel like telling my teacher about mushrooms.

If you have an answer, plz help!!Small Textpleaaasseee!!71.225.106.138 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

school project

can star fish come back alive when they have been out of water for some time ?

If the starfish has begun to dry out when out of the water, then it dies, and can not be revived if reimmersed.--Mr Fink 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

what eats a starfish or seastar?

Birds, Sea Otters, and humans who collect them. Might I suggest posting other questions you may have at The Wikipedia Reference desk? There, people look for questions and they will answer your questions. Not that I'm not happy to answer your questions here, but it isn't exactly the right place to do it. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I suggest that if this page is to be considered under the topic of science that the term in scientific usage be used. I certainly agree that 'starfish' is in most common usage; but let's not aspire to be common; let's be an encyclopedia and not arm the wikipedia bashers with another mistake. A simple test: do a google 'book search' to see which term the scientists use. Heck, if I'm wrong use whatever term you like.Dmccabe (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

@Dmccabe

I think you're missing the point. Sea star is an artificial common name. In other words while it may actually be common it is not as common as starfish. (IMHO it is an unnecessary and misguided attempt at linguistic engineering.) If the page is to remain under a common name then it should be starfish. If it is to be under a scientific name it should be Asteroidea.

Wikipedia seems to prefer common names for some things (see onion, banana, apple, walnut, almond, moose or (our old friend) jellyfish) and latin/scientifc names for others (see Corylus avellana (hazelnut), cannabis (marijuana, ganja, weed etc) or Merlangius merlangus (whiting)). Good examples for us though are the entries for haddock and almond. Both have alternative (less) common names, offshore hake and cork nut respectively, but they are not headed up with these names.

Oppose1bj05hua (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. This page links to the Asterozoa taxobox. Because of a considerable revision of the groupings of the echinodermata, this is both wrong and misleading. What the public used to call "starfish" did not include cushion stars and a whole bunch of things like sunstars that are included in the new classification. Starfish is a common description for the the penta radial symetrical members of this class. The present article equating the Asterozoa with "Starfish" is simply inaccurate. It is also out of line with the vast majority of marine recognition guides published in the last ten years and most of the specialist sites on the net. Either split this into two articles, one on starfish that does not link to the Asterozoa taxobox and one on sea stars that does, or restore its original title.

Support --Shoka (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow!
How depressing. Seems that starfish got moved back to sea star without any further discussion. This really disappoints me. The arguments for "seastar" were only marginally better than for "Jellyfish" (which I note still has not lost the battle). I know it's not authoritative or empirical evidence but I note that Google Scholar still does not support the 'scientific community' argument.
starfish + Asteroidea gets 2,610 hits[3]
"sea star" + Asteroidea gets 1410 hits[4]
starfish + marine gets 19,000 hits[5]
"sea star" + marine gets 4960 hits[6]

So................

1bj05hua (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A New Requested move

Can we end this once and for all and follow the lead taken by all the entries that use their scientific names (i.e. latin names -- clearly names like "Sea Star" and "Sea Jelly" are not scientific even if they have some limited currency in the scientific world). Seahorse seems like the best role-model. I am no marine biologist and don't feel qualified to suggest the class/order/genus etc. to be used, so can someone else speak up? I would also suggest a further rewrite of the opening sentence to reflect common usage/reality (rather than a pedantic revisionist view or the English language). Something like:

Asteroidea are a class, known commonly as starfish (and sometimes assea stars), are a class belonging to the [phylum] echinodermata

1bj05hua (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm decidedly pro-starfish -- I think "sea star" is an idiotic neologism, and I can't think of and ordinary person actually ever using it in normal conversation (also, -- why was this issue settled to quickly with "jellyfish," but not here?), but I agree strongly with you that this would resolve the fairly silly debate going on here. Let's just rename it "asteroidea" and be done with it.

Varieties

I noticed that the internal links for pincushion sea star and eleven-armed sea star redirect to the same page. This isn't really important, but I thought that the links should at least be condensed or one could be omitted. I can't edit it myself, as it is semi-protected and I'm not a member. Help would be appreciated. 66.102.198.81 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)SP

The link Asteroidea of the North Sea is "a must" for a starfish site. ---- slj 12.05.08

Starfish as food

I just saw, on the Travel Channel, a Chinese street vendor deep fry a starfish in a wok and serve it to the host, who ate an arm, and said that it tasted good. However, this article does not mention that they are edible by humans. Their edibility, and where they are part of local cuisines, should be added. Badagnani (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese eat everything...No offense. Smarkflea (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Predators of starfish?

The article mentions predators in at least two places, but gives no hint as to what sort of creatures the predators might be. Fish? Octopuses? (Or, as noted in the previous section, humans?) This is a regrettable omission. -- Dominus (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

At least one species of starfish Solaster paxillatus are predatory on other startfish. Picture here.. Sorry cannot raise the enthusiasm to fix the redlink, too much chance of editorial vandelism top be worth the effort. http://www.biopix.com/Species.asp?Searchtext=Solaster%20papposus&Category=LavereDyr --Shoka (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific name of the animal

Can someone please add to a section the scientific name of this animal. Not the class order or phylum in which is belongs Valserian (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The class is the scientific name of the animal. kwami (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reported discovery of eight-armed spiny sea star

It was reported last week in the UK, here and in less detail here, that an eight-armed spiny sea star had been caught off the coast of Cornwall, the sole documented case. It was suggested that the creature is an example of a pair of conjoined twins. Would anyone agree that this is worthy of inclusion? If so, where would the information be best placed? The end of the first paragraph of 'External anatomy' seems most appropriate with regard to subject matter, but might then harm the flow of general description. Another disinterested reader (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "developmental abnormalities" has since been made in the 'Appearance' section; I have added the reference here. Another disinterested reader (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of blurred image File:Estrella de mar en Zoo Basel .JPG

I have place a further comment on User talk:Pediainsight. William Avery (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Page name

There was a move request in 2007 that resulted in a consensus to move from "Sea star" to "Starfish". In 2008, Fire55 moved it to "Sea Star" (note the second captial) saying it was the most "accepted" name. At some point not clear from the log, it was moved back to "Starfish". Later, Kwamikagami moved it to "Sea star" saying, "Discussion was to move to 'sea star'. No discussion to move back." There appears to have been no justification for Kwamikagami's move as there was no discussion prompting the move to "Sea star" and the most recent consensus is "Starfish". Fire55's move appears to have happened with absolutely no discussion. As a result, I intend to move the page back to "Starfish", which is by far the more common term in English (what is used in scientific literature is immaterial). Exactly what form that attempt will take depends upon the response here. -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia should strive to be more correct than popular but in this case... "sea star" is such an obscure name compared to "star fish" AND neither name is the scientific name, so I find it odd that a scientific argument would be used to separate two non scientific names. Naming conventions should be as uniform and scientific as possible but should also be familiar and usable. ("Leafy Sea Dragon" has an entry that is not scientific but it is useful for most users.) In the case of "sea star" I just cannot agree that its use is common enough to satisfy a "usefulness test" OR scientific enough to satisfy a "scientific" test. I can understand the logic of a debate between "star fish" or the scientific name but the inclusion of "sea star" doesn't fit either criterion. What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.131 (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this "sea star" neologism is an American coinage. I would be interested to know if it has any currency in Britain; a quick test of my immediate acquaintances here in New Zealand (including a zoology graduate) revealed no familiarity with the term, but I suppose that's original research and doesn't count. What about India and other third world English speakers? Between them and the rest of us, North American English speakers are seriously outnumbered. Why should we be compelled to adopt a minority usage when "starfish" has served perfectly well for centuries? 118.92.149.128 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an American, and I have never once heard the term "sea star" spoken, and only saw in print for the first time a couple of days ago. As such, I have difficulty accepting your evidence-free suspicions. Before jumping into completely baseless supposition about who is to blame, why don't we get a sense of why on Earth anyone thinks we should be using "sea star" to begin with. -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. I came here after seeing on a blog that "kids call them 'sea stars' nowadays"[7], and assumed this was a British thing. Usually Americans tend to go for the most common type or archetype when naming things, while it's the British who go for bureaucratic-sounding neologisms ( ex. "motorists" vs. "road users" ). Anyway, I'm from the United States and never heard them called "sea stars" until now. Looking through Google Books and Google News archive, the term shows up in a few documents from the 1800s, but really didn't take off until the late 1980s. Probably a generational thing that started with schools using the more "politically correct" name.

Anyway, we all know that starfish aren't really fish, just like the seahorse isn't really a horse and the sea urchin isn't really an urchin. The same goes for jellyfish, sea cucumbers, and sand dollars. Unless we plan to move to the scientific name Asteroidea, we should leave it at the most common name, "starfish". Also see the essay WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason, and had the same reaction about who the likely culprit was. Of course, academics are equally prone to force new words on us, so it may not be geographical. -Rrius (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You call cyclists motorists in the US? Incidentally [8] suggests the term is used in NZ Nil Einne (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but we don't lump them into a new category called "road users" either. Frankly, we don't use "motorist" much. It is far more normal to refer to "drivers", even in formal writing. -Rrius (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The only time I've seen "road users" used in the US was in government documents about devices such as motorized scooters, where there was a debate over how to classify the vehicles. We usually use "drivers" or "motorists", and "cyclists" for bicycles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus to move to common name. Kuru (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Sea star → Starfish — Per discussions on talk page, "starfish" appears to be the more commonly used name by far. "Sea stars", while trendy, feels artificial and may not be familiar to as many of our readers. -Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Support - It's not clear from the move logs why the last move-request consensus was overturned. "Starfish" is far more familiar to English-speakers from around the world. Per WP:NAME, that is what should guide our decision. -Rrius (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - As was stated earlier, the two main reasons why Starfish was moved to Sea Star are a) marine biologists are trying to get "sea star" used as a more accurate common name, and b) starfish are not "fish," i.e., any obligate gill-breathing vertebrate that isn't descended from a tetrapod.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, Sea star was moved back to Starfish last time we had a formal merge request. However, an editor moved it to Sea star again, then after some vandalism the page was move-locked and therefore needs a move request so an admin can fix it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Responding to those points: which marine biologists? Sea star isn't a scientific name after all, just something that's taught to schoolchildren. Starfish may not be fish, but neither are jellyfish, sea cucumber, seahorse, sand dollar, etc. Common names are best. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This argument was raised and rejected the last time this was up for discussion. The result was to move it back to "starfish". Since then, with absolutely no discussion, one editor moved it to "Sea Star". After it was moved back to "starfish" and some Hagger-related page-move vandalism occurred, it moved to "Sea star" with a reference to a discussion that never appeared on this talk page. From the available record, there simply is no basis for saying there ever was a consensus for "sea star". It seems to be the personal preference of people like you, who think we should simply accept the wishes of marine biologists and teachers instead of reflecting the actual usage of English-speakers. In the prior discussions, it seems that no one supporting "sea star" has ever made an argument related to WP:NAME, but have instead made normative arguments about it being "better" or "more scientific". Since these creatures are no more stars than they are fish, the arguments are flawed on their face, but they are, more importantly, irrelevant. The common term is "starfish", so, under WP:NAME, "starfish" it should be. -Rrius (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support per results of previous move request discussion which were overturned without discussion. In case, that's not enough reason, support per WP:UCN. A starfish is may not be a fish but it's not a star either. And a sea doesn't really refer to a specific type of hydroform. And a centipede doesn't really have 100 legs. And so on. When the name "sea star" actually attains predominant usage, then that title will be appropriate but, until then, its' not Wikipedia's job to carry water for "marine biologists...trying to get 'sea star' used". (Now, if true accuracy is desired oceanic pentagram might work.) — AjaxSmack 05:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If we wanted "true accuracy," then why not move it to "Asteroidea"?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we use common names. Just like we have articles on fish and zebras and couches even of they are not formal names or categories. — AjaxSmack 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The move away for starfish was conducted without discussion, even though a 2007 discussion firmly confirmed a move to starfish on a WP:COMMONNAME basis. No WP:RM discussion has taken place since then so this really should be a procedural move back to the article title that had previously been decided upon by the community. --Labattblueboy (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Starfish is a good topic, and should have an article. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand]. This is the article about starfish; the question is whether it should be called "Starfish" or "Sea star". -Rrius (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Understood. In which case, what's the problem? That's exactly how my vote should be interpretted, and I'm sure it will be. The appeals to the common name convention above are so numerous I didn't think another was necessary, so I just added the argument that I thought was new. Sorry to confuse you. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: this is the common name used by ordinary people and biologists, never mind what Mr. Fink says. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "starfish" is the thing that looks like a pentastar, there are other varieties. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Really?—The article makes no such distinction. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The supposed prescriptive wishes ascribed above to marine biologists, who I am sure are for the most part sensible people, have no place in deciding this question, and Wikipedia should not be aiding any group in such supercilious pointiness. We'll only have to move it to some other neologism when someone gets a bee in their bonnet about them not being massive, luminous balls of plasma. William Avery (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment whatever the merits of either name, I don't think the argument 'it isn't a star either' makes much sense. Some do look like stars, as in the shape most people think of when you mention a star shape. It's true they aren't 'massive, luminous balls of plasma', but very few people are dumb enough to think a starfish is a 'massive, luminous balls of plasma' the same as a star fruit for example. Sea cucumber and seahorse are similar albeit not to such an extreme (at least I think so, but maybe I'm overestimating people). However there are almost definitely plenty of people who think they are fish, similar to jellyfish and killer whales (being whales) and I think it's entirely resonably a somewhat educated person may make those mistakes. In other words, the term starfish definitely can cause confusion because of the inclusion of the 'fish' but isn't going to cause confusion of the 'star' well at least not as in people are going to think they are stars. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't fathom anyone from any walk of life, even a small child, thinking that starfish are actually fish. They don't have fins, bones, scales, eyes, or a face, and they sit at the bottom of the ocean. I'd imagine most lay people would class them with shellfish ( another term that shouldn't cause any problem ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't make sense to you, then you don't understand the argument. The people favouring "sea star" say starfish aren't fish, so the name is wrong. The counter is that "sea stars" aren't stars. They may be star-shaped, but that is not the same thing. Moreover, they are ignoring the fact that "fish" means more than the creatures with gills, scales, and fins. See, e.g., sense 1a at Merriam–Webster Online (note that it is sense 1a, not 1b or 2). -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But as I said, they are stars (as in something shaped like the common idea of a star shape)! And as I said, no one is dumb enough to think something called a starfish is a luminous ball of plasma, but plenty people are going to think a starfish is a fish. The same that no one is dumb enough to think the stars on the New Zealand flag, which are inspired by certain luminous ball of plasmas, are actually luminous balls of plasma themselves. The same as no one is dumb enough to think the star on the Malaysian flag, which is inspired by no luminous ball of plasma in particular was chosen because of it's symbology with Islam is a luminous ball of plasma itself. The same as no one is dumb enough to think Michael Jackson or the Beatles are luminous balls of plasma. These are completely different things and the differing usage causes virtually no confusion. The fact that you for whatever reason seem to think there is only one meaning of the word 'star' is I guess up to you, but even in a scientific sense, no one cares about these non-confusing usages of the term. Now calling Venus say an evening star, is a confusing usage and a far better example but it's not something of relevance here (and we do take care to to ensure people don't think Venus is a star although I'm guessing far fewer people think Venus is a star, even if they sometimes call it a star, then people think starfish is a fish in the scientific sense). It's true that fish can have different meanings (note that 1a can include mammalian aquatic organisms like whales/dolphins), but it's clear that scientifically, one usage is preferred and usages which can cause confusion are avoided. The same with monkeys (plenty of people think apes are monkeys and while in some ways it's a better to include them and all primates, it isn't the commonly understood definition of the term), apes (plenty of people think humans aren't apes, even those who don't have religious reasons for doing so), and animals (ditto to apes) for example. Or even plants to some extent (while there are still a variety of usages even scientifically, plenty of people think yeast and other fungi are plants, and while you can clearly keep the original meaning of plant which include fungi, scientifically it's a use that is best avoided for a variety of reason). And to repeat for a third time since you didn't get it the first time I'm quite certain quite a few people think seafish are fish in a scientific sense, and I don't think this is unresonable mistake for even a resonably educated person to make. However it's clearly just plain silly to suggest people are going to think sea stars/starfish are luminous balls of plasma because even a 8 year old child is likely to recognise they are called stars because of the shape, not because they are luminous balls of plasma. The same as thinking killer whales are whales. And frankly I feel like switching to oppose just because it's so frustratingn (but not WP:POINT since it obviously isn't going to make a difference to the outcome or discussion) when people make such ridiculous arguments. P.S. I guess if I find some organism that is shaped like a Heart (symbol) and call it a heartwhatever/whatever heart you're going to say people are going to think it's actually a heart, but hopefully others will see this argument for what it is... At least in that case the symbol actually causes confusion, because there are people who think actual human hearts are quite close to the shape (which is likely true for stars as well to some extent), not that that's particularly relevant to the issue of an organism called a heartwhatever/whatever heart Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. What you clearly don't understand is that the initial justification for "sea star" relies on an excessively restrictive definition of "fish". The response that a sea star is not a star merely turns the table by insisting on a restrictive definition of star. I sincerely hope we are done with this now. -Rrius (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support personally, although I haven't heard the name before, I prefer sea star. However I dislike undiscussed moves or moves against consensus and also acknowledge starfish like meets WP:NAME so have no choice but to support Nil Einne (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. If an admin moves this page back to consensus, can we still leave the move-protection up? I don't want this to go back and forth every couple of weeks. The several moves against consensus are reason to leave the protection up. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the protection was because of the Haggar vandalism (he likes to move pages to things like HAGGAR RULES!!!). If so, I expect that decision would be based on whether it's likely he'd strike here again. -Rrius (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he's as likely to strike now as he was then. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support clear common name.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference for Faulty Starfish-Control Measures

In the "Reproduction" section, a citation was requested for the assertion that fishermen used to inadvertently increase the starfish population in their work waters by chopping up starfish and throwing them back into the sea. This can be found on page 858 of volume 17 of the New Encylopædia Britannica (15th edition, 1993), in its Macropædia article on "Echinoderms". -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Granulated sea star.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Granulated sea star.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of species

At different points in this article, the number of species is identified at 1800 and then 1600. Is there an approved estimate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericduffy (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Although both figures are presented as approximate, that's enough of a difference to warrant an attempt at consistency. The 1800 figure (found only in the lede—not good, since the lede should summarize the body of the article) is unsourced, while the 1600 figure is sourced (albeit less than optimally, to Britannica). A quick search turned up no especially dependable figure that I could find. (Here's a source that says 2000.) More checking is needed. I can do some specialized searches when I get a chance. In the meantime, feel free to do your own searches and report back on what you find. (Keep in mind that the figure necessarily will be approximate, since the actual number can only be estimated. It seems to me we should be able to find how many species have been identified to date, although obviously such a figure will change.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section called Diversity which includes the number of species in each order taken from WoRMS (it took me ages to count them all). It works out at about 1800. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Erika oil spill

However, after the Erika oil spill off the coast of France in 1999, the common starfish Asterias rubens was found to have increased its production of detoxification enzymes and two months later, starfish growth, reproductive activity, larval development and energy storage were not significantly altered from their pre-event levels.

I removed this statement. First the study in question very clearly states, The substance released was not a true crude oil. Second, the juxtaposition of this content in the "Threats" section is very misleading, as the study does not say or imply that Starfish are immune to oil spills. It says that there was an enhanced immunological response that "suggest" rapid decontamination, which "could explain why starfish growth, level of motile activity, reproductive investment, energy storage, and larval development were not significantly affected by these contaminants." That's an entirely different study and statement than the one that was placed in this section. In other words, the study is about the effects of the oil spill on the growth and reproductive cycle of the Common Starfish. Its placement in the threats sections after the statement, "oil spills and similar events often take a toll on echinoderm populations that carry far-reaching consequences for the ecosystem" does not negate or change that fact, as the study itself says "mass mortalities of the starfish species Asterias rubens and Marthasterias glacialis were observed on the highly polluted shore of the Croisic headland (Loire Atlantique) a few days after the spill" and "contaminated sediments from the North Sea were proven to have deleterious effects on embryo development of this species" which "suggests that pollution could also have an impact on the demographic parameters of the species". The study then proceeded to look at this problem, concluding that there was "no significant long-term effects of the Erika oil spill on A. rubens dynamics." Nevertheless, oil spills are still considered a threat to the species, regardless of the outcome of one study looking at the Erika oil spill, which contains many unknowns. Finally, the study itself cites a dozen or so previous studies which discuss the threat of oil spills to starfish. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Plan for FA

There are some ideas for preparing this article for FAC.

• Should probably add more information on evolution. Maybe we could use this, [this and/or this for resources.

• The "threats" section should be expanded, we probably should add information on conservation issues (I've heard that starfish are often considered pests) and ecological effects (positive and negative). I found this paper which documents the negative effects of some species on coral reefs. LittleJerry (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe not a big deal but perhaps we should look into cultural depictions of starfish (besides Patrick Star).

Yes, I think it needs a "culture" section. Chiswick Chap would be good at that! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can find anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Found this paper on thermoregulation. Don't know where to put it. Same for this

Any other suggestions? LittleJerry (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose to improve the "internal anatomy" section as I now have access to better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I just ordered "Starfish: Biology and Ecology of the Asteroidea". Should be a great resource. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll jump once I get it. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done a little palaeontology - how much should there be? (As with culture, there isn't much for this group, it seems.)

Haeckel's drawing is in, but we haven't mentioned he wanted to use the Echinoderms and their larvae for his recapitulation theory (dropped it as hard to get reliable supply). Alas not specific to Starfish so unsure whether to mention. Similarly for neoteny relationship to chordates.

What else needs doing? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll join when I get my copy of "Starfish: Biology and Ecology of the Asteroidea". LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Chap, would you be able to find information on starfish in mythology? LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can locate (do you have anything particular in mind?). BTW I'm CC if you need a short form... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Try Greek, Roman, or Pacific Islander mythology. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Found an Australian one... no sign of Classical yet but will keep looking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've entirely failed to find Classical sources; Stella Maris and Asterias seem to be exclusively astronomical, with the Virgin Mary mixed in. I did manage to find a Polynesian source; will give up at this point unless I stumble on something really interesting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, don't forget to put in Patrick Star. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were kidding me! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just got my book. Will do some work on evolution and ecology tomorrow night. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good! I have added a nice image of tube feet and eyespot but I think it would look better if it was turned upside down. What do others think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at two current FA articles on invertebrates Ant and Bivalvia, I guess we don't need a conservation section. That seems to be more suited for megafauna. Anyway I change the title of the "In culture" section to "Human relations" since the latter is broader. There's a photo on Wikicommons of starfish as food, maybe one of you can find some info on human consumption of starfish. The lead paragraph mentions that starfish are used frequently in developmental biology. Any more information on that? Meanwhile, I'll continue to work on the ecology section and later the taxonomy/evolution section. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added an "As food" section - evidence for it is hard to come by, perhaps because evidence of toxicity is plentiful. It seems that traditional recipes boil slowly to dissolve toxins, discard the outside (body wall full of ossicles and toxins) and eat what's left, presumably gonads and maybe other organs. Would be grateful if the section could be reviewed.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for formatting etc

I suggest we adopt the following conventions, not because they are better, but because they are what are used in the article at the moment and we should aim for uniformity:

• Starfish rather than seastar; arms rather than rays; tube feet rather than podia - I don't object to these being changed if anyone else feels strongly about them, they just need to be used in a uniform way.
• Names of authors as in "Dorit, R. L.; Walker, W. F.; Barnes, R. D."
• Access dates and other dates as in "2012-10-18" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. And are the two To Do lists (above) up to date, and if so, are (any parts of) them part of our plans? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No they're for the respective projects, not this article. LittleJerry (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Move section

Would it be a good idea to move the taxonomy/phylogeny to the end, as it is relatively technical, and maybe more importantly it makes use of definitions of terms (like pedicellariae) that at the moment happen after the section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I am creating various short articles as we go. I have just done Paxilla and a stub for rhe fossil in our image Riedaster reicheli and I plan to do Ossicle (echinoderm) later today as the current ossicle just leads to an article on the middle ear. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Super. I was a bit worried about ossicles sounding passive like bones, when the pedi-unspellable-ariaeaeaaeiaae seem to be active structures with muscles or maybe it's hydraulics like the tube-feet. Will move the section now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Things needing doing

I think the things we have been improving and adding since we started working on the article are looking quite good. Some of what was there previously is a bit weak and repetitious. Here are my views, having just read the article through:

• The lead section needs improvement.
• Remove duplication. The appearance section for example mentions things that are more fully developed in other sections.

The Appearance section is perhaps entirely redundant to the new anatomy/physiology sections, and to Diversity. Maybe some sentences can be saved (moved to relevant sections). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be dismantled paragraph by paragraph, possibly using some parts elsewhere. Do you want to do it?

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, done the merge, leaving a short bit on Symmetry (could extend or move?). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto the opening remarks in the Anatomy section.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I doubt we need the single opening sentence in the Life cycle section.
• Larval development seems a bit unordered. I should be able to improve it with my "Invertebrate Zoology".

I have introduced a couple of red links into "Sexual reproduction" section but intend to write articles for these species. I am working on the "Larval development" section in my sandbox. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Improving the images.
• I think the Ecological impact section is looking good.
• The Diversity section needs attention. I remember I found it very difficult to do when I worked on this article for GA but I have better sources now.
• I like the human relations section.
• Copyediting to tidy up the prose.
• Making sure all the references are in the proper format (and from reliable sources).
• Polishing to improve the copyediting! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure about the starfish drawing (artistic qualities?) in human relations (or its caption), what does it add? Could be OR, too. Opinions? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, have removed it, maybe we can find something prettier. I've added a cropped and rearranged selection of 3 larvae from the Haeckel plate - I think you'll agree it's altogether less confusing than Haeckel's original (didn't he always put aesthetics above intelligibility?). I've put it in the repro section, we might need to add some more text about larvae/embryological development through stages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done expanding on the ecology section. I'll work on evolution and taxonomy next. In the meantime, is there any information on starfish as souvenirs? LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna focus on Smilodon for GA but I'll be back. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush. It suits me not to do anything with this till June. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Aposematism

On the ecology, we have here a group of animals that are a) slow-moving b) conspicuous c) toxic (saponins ...). Animals like that include toads, poison dart frogs, monarch caterpillars ... they're aposematic. Can we find a book or paper that says as much? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Shedd: Crown of Thorns Sea Star might just be usable
• Seems to be "untested because few predators eat starfish" - um, could be because they're toxic and aposematic.

What about this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it says they're slow, and colourful, and poisonous ... but doesn't draw the obvious conclusion! Nice book though, and lovely it's available to read online. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

More recent phylogeny trees

The Lawrence book lists three recent starfish phylogenies sourced to

• Gale A.S. 2011. The upper Oxfordian (Jurassic) asteroid fauna of Savigna, Jura, France. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 130, 69-89
• Mah, Christopher Foltz, David. 2011. Molecular phylogeny of the Valvatacea (Asteroidea: Echinodermata) Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161(4): 769-788./Mah, C. & D. Foltz. (2011). Molecular Phylogeny of the Forcipulatacea (Asteroidea: Echinodermata): systematics and biogeography. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 162(3): 646-660 {maybe same tree)
• Janies DA, Voight JR, Daly M. 2011. Echinoderm phylogeny including Xyloplax, a progenetic asteroid. Syst Biol. 2011 Jul;60(4):420-38.

I think we should get access to these papers (via Wikipedia resource exchange) and add in these new trees. I'm not good at making cladograms. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. I can do cladograms given the info but don't have access to such recent papers on JSTOR. Ideally we'd have just one cladogram - IF the phylo-dispute has calmed down. If not, the existing trees are (deliberately) chosen to show the divergence of views, which the ref cited says was made WORSE by later research. Anyway, if someone passes me the info I can do the diagram. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You can request the papers here. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What an efficient request system that is. The papers were difficult to reconcile, but I've managed to draw up a tree based on the Janies paper. It turns out that the 2 "old" cladograms I drew are rather useful in showing how thought has moved on, and hinting at why the task has been difficult (not only for me but on a large scale). I therefore suggest we leave them in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good job. LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What next?

I have done some work on the Taxonomy and Evolutionary history sections and tweaked the lead, and I think it is about ready. Are we planning to put the article up for peer review so as to get some useful outside opinions? Does it need further copyediting? Or are we going straight to FA? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel we've done what we can; maybe the lead should touch on Evol history and Human relations too. Peer review might be a sensible step; but you know more of the process than I do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think to be safe we have it peer reviewed. If its alright with you guys I'll submit it and ask Axl to review. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'll probably add in info on starfish as souvenirs. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll have another go at the lead as per Chiswick Chap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Now I think its comprehensive enough. Let me know when you're ready for PR. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost ... does the sentence on stiff or floppy, etc, at end of lead refer to 'In culture' or in life? Maybe remove or redo. Then I think we're ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK --- LittleJerry, over to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

BBC video suitable?

Is this video Life - Timelapse of swarming monster worms and sea stars - BBC One suitable for inclusion as an external link? Seems to illuminate the subject, and there are no copyright issues (it's on the BBC's own YouTube channel).--A bit iffy (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a fascinating video! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Toxicity

I would've liked to read more about the toxicity of starfish. While it is mentioned in the article, it's not addressed more deeply. What species are toxic, types of poisons, symptoms that poisoning causes.

80.223.182.224 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the main reason why the article doesn't go in depth about starfish toxicity is because comparatively few starfish species are toxic, and that poisonous starfish vary in their toxicity, as well as being poisonous for different reasons, i.e., some have venomous pedicellarie, others acquire toxic compounds from the environment, or even have noxious bacteria that cause food poisoning in whatever eats it, etc.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Asterias rubens, dissection.svg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Asterias rubens, dissection.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 15, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A diagram showing an aboral view of a partially dissected starfish

1. Pyloric stomach
2. Intestine and anus
3. Rectal sac
4. Stone canal
5. Madreporite
6. Pyloric caecum
7. Digestive glands
8. Cardiac stomach
9. Gonad
10. Radial canal
11. Ambulacral ridge

Diagram: Hans Hillewaert

Starfish wasting disease

Seems odd that there would be no mention of this,, it's been in the news quite a bit lately...174.21.121.176 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added some information on this to the article and a link to Starfish wasting disease. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Starfish. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222070509/http://sea.sheddaquarium.org/sea/fact_sheets.asp?id=69 to http://sea.sheddaquarium.org/sea/fact_sheets.asp?id=69

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Starfish. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030063248/http://accessscience.com/abstract.aspx?id=900559 to http://accessscience.com/abstract.aspx?id=900559

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Starfish. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030063255/http://accessscience.com/abstract.aspx?id=900558&referURL=http%3A%2F%2Faccessscience.com%2Fcontent.aspx%3FsearchStr%3DForcipulatida%26id%3D900558 to http://accessscience.com/abstract.aspx?id=900558&referURL=http%3A%2F%2Faccessscience.com%2Fcontent.aspx%3FsearchStr%3DForcipulatida%26id%3D900558
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030063309/http://accessscience.com/overflow.aspx?SearchInputText=Spinulosida+&ContentTypeSelect=4 to http://accessscience.com/overflow.aspx?SearchInputText=Spinulosida+&ContentTypeSelect=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030063303/http://accessscience.com/abstract.aspx?id=900662&referURL=http%3A%2F%2Faccessscience.com%2Fcontent.aspx%3Fid%3D900662 to http://accessscience.com/abstract.aspx?id=900662&referURL=http%3A%2F%2Faccessscience.com%2Fcontent.aspx%3Fid%3D900662

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Starfish. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140803035529/http://search.kenko.com/product/%E5%B0%8F%E8%A2%8B to http://search.kenko.com/product/%E5%B0%8F%E8%A2%8B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207161559/http://www.motorola.com/General/Press/PR980714.html to https://www.motorola.com/General/Press/PR980714.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307030758/http://www.dukestartupchallenge.org/starfish to http://www.dukestartupchallenge.org/starfish
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120163105/http://www.starfishsonar.com/index.htm to http://www.starfishsonar.com/index.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)