<article_title>Bryozoa</article_title>
<edit_user>Philcha</edit_user>
<edit_time>Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:20:04 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Fossil record */ cheilostomates consistently grew over cyclostomates</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Image:OilShaleFossilsEstonia.jpg Fossils of about 15,000&amp;nbsp;bryozoan species have been found. Marine taxa with mineralized skeletons appear in rocks dating from the Arenigian stage of the Early Ordovician period, about .&lt;ref name=&quot;RichFenton1997Bryozoans&quot; /&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; At this point all the modern orders of stenolaemates were present,&lt;ref name=&quot;DewelWinstonMcKinney2001Deconstructing&quot; /&gt; and by the Middle Ordovician, about , the ctenostome order of gymnolaemates had appeared. Around the same time, other types of filter feeders appeared, which suggests that some change made the environment more favorable for this lifestyle.&lt;ref name=&quot;RichFenton1997Bryozoans&quot; /&gt; Fossils of cheilostomates, another order of gymnolaemates, first appear in the Mid Jurassic, about , and from the Cretaceous to the present these have been the most abundant and diverse bryozoans.&lt;ref name=&quot;RichFenton1997Bryozoans&quot; /&gt;<strong> Evidence compiled from the last 100&amp;amp;nbsp million years show that cheilostomates consistently grew over cyclostomates in territorial struggles, which may help to explain how cheilostomates replaced cyclostomates as the dominant marine bryozoans.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=McKinney|first=F.K.|date=1994|title=One hundred million years of competitive interactions between bryozoan clades: asymmetrical but not escalating|journal=Biological Journal of the Linnean Society|volume=56|issue=3|pages=465-481|doi=10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.tb01105.x}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;</strong> Marine fossils from the Paleozoic era, which ended , are mainly of erect forms, those from the Mesozoic are fairly equally divided by erect and encrusting forms, and more recent ones are predominantly encrusting.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Fossils of the soft, freshwater phylactolaemates are very rare,&lt;ref name=&quot;RichFenton1997Bryozoans&quot; /&gt; appear in and after the Late Permian (which began about ) and consist entirely of their durable statoblasts.&lt;ref name=&quot;MassardGeimer2008FreshwaterBryoDiversity&quot; /&gt; There are no known fossils of freshwater members of other classes.&lt;ref name=&quot;MassardGeimer2008FreshwaterBryoDiversity&quot; /&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Philcha<turn_user>
<turn_time>Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:13:04 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Proposed move to Ectoprocta</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Rationale: The contents of "Bryozoa" have fluctuated ever since the discovery of the Entoprocta (another phylum with a similar feeding structure) in the mid-19th cent, and the debate continues. So "Bryozoa" is ambiguous,as it could refer to Ectoprocta+Entoprocta or to Ectoprocta alone.
Nevertheless "Bryozoa" has been synonymous with "Ectoprocta" in most literature since 1869, both neoontological and paleontological, including 101-level textbooks. Thus readers will generally be more familiar with "Bryozoa" than with "Ectoprocta" (or "Entoprocta", which seems to have received even less study). The scope for confusing readers is huge.
Since the debate continues, the safest course is to use the unambiguous although confusingly similar "Ectoprocta" and "Entoprocta" for the main articles. This is in line with ITIS, which treats "Ectoprocta" as the http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&amp;search_value=155470 and "Bryozoa" as http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&amp;search_value=155469
Simply redirecting Bryozoa to Ectoprocta would be misleading, as it would not warn readers of the potential for confusion. Hence I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a "health warning" for readers.
Bryozoa can then be modified in either direction if the debate is actually resolved and ITIS concurs. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Support
Per ratioale. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>The contents of "Bryozoa" have fluctuated ever since the discovery of the Entoprocta (another phylum with a similar feeding structure) in the mid-19th cent, and the debate continues. So "Bryozoa" is ambiguous,as it could refer to Ectoprocta+Entoprocta or to Ectoprocta alone.
Nevertheless "Bryozoa" has been synonymous with "Ectoprocta" in most literature since 1869, both neoontological and paleontological, including 101-level textbooks. Thus readers will generally be more familiar with "Bryozoa" than with "Ectoprocta" (or "Entoprocta", which seems to have received even less study). The scope for confusing readers is huge.
Since the debate continues, the safest course is to use the unambiguous although confusingly similar "Ectoprocta" and "Entoprocta" for the main articles. This is in line with ITIS, which treats "Ectoprocta" as the http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&amp;search_value=155470 and "Bryozoa" as http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&amp;search_value=155469
Simply redirecting Bryozoa to Ectoprocta would be misleading, as it would not warn readers of the potential for confusion. Hence I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a "health warning" for readers.
Bryozoa can then be modified in either direction if the debate is actually resolved and ITIS concurs. </turn_text>