Talk:Sessility (motility)

Add discussion
Active discussions
WikiProject Animals (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
Sessility (motility) is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animals To-do:

WikiProject Biophysics  (Inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

How is radial symmetry advantageous to sessile animals?Edit

I would imagine that being radially symmetrical would make filter feeding easier, but a lot of filter feeders, like sea lilies, sponges, and sea anemones, are actually bilaterally symmetrical. So, what other advantages could it possibly pose? Thanks in advance. --Luigifan (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Sessility (limnology)Edit

I have included text from the limnology article and plan to change that to a redirect to this article. I also plan to move this article to Sessility (biology). The article still needs better referencing and expansion. MB (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MB: This looks better. However, "Sessility (biology)" may not fully disambiguate from "Sessility (botany)". I've retargeted most of the links previously pointing to the limnology article, but there are a couple remaining that intend both non-motile algae and animals (though not in the context of lakes; limnology is still the wrong term). Depending on what happens with the title of this article, it might be better to retarget the limnology article to the sessility dab page (or delete it). Plantdrew (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: You haven't proposed a better name. I realize that there is still some ambiguation with biology, botany, and the "Sessility (medicine)" article, but I was trying to be concise. It seems to me that anyone looking at the dab page would realize botany and medicine were more narrow subtopics and biology somehow different. Do you think either "Sessility (organic motility)" or just (motility) is better? Motility clears up any ambiguation but may not be as clear to the general reader. MB (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@MB: "Sessility (motility)" seems look a good title for the concept in this article. Digging a little further, I'm not especially surprised to find that "sessile" also can refer to a "stalkless" morphology in animals (e.g. head/thorax spacing in beetles. Perhaps a sessility (morphology) article would be useful? Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: I've completed the move and updated the DAB page. I will take care of the old (limnology) article. Since you are fixing the last two links to that, can you also look at the two links to "Clumping (biology)" which redirects to (motility). As far at the (morphology) article, perhaps that concept along with (medicine) and (botany) should all be merged into a single (stalk/stemless) article. I'll leave that to you if you want to pursue it. This whole area is a bit out of my comfort zone, I only got involved because I stumbled onto the (limnology) crap because I was disambiguating! MB (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)