<article_title>Bryozoa</article_title>
<edit_user>JerryFriedman</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, October 30, 2009 3:26:06 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>copyedit lead and reorder a sentence for better flow (IMHO)</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Individuals in bryozoan (ectoproct) colonies are called zooids, since they are not fully-independent animals. All colonies contain autozooids, which are responsible for feeding and excretion. Colonies of some classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids, some of which are hatcheries for fertilized eggs, and some classes also have special zooids for defense of the colony. The class Cheilostomata have <strong><strike>the largest number of species, possibly because they </strike></strong>have the widest range of specialist zooids (which may be why they have the largest number of species). A few species can creep very slowly by using spiny defensive zooids as legs. Autozooids supply nutrients to non-feeding zooids by channels that vary between classes. All zooids, including those of the solitary species, consist of a cystid that provides the body wall and produces the exoskeleton and an polypide that contains the internal organs and the lophophore or other specialist extensions. Zooids have no special excretory organs, and the polypides of autozooids are scrapped when the polypides become overloaded by waste products; usually the body wall then grows a replacement polypide. In autozooids the gut is U-shaped, with the mouth inside the &quot;crown&quot; of tentacles and the anus outside it. Colonies take a variety of forms, including fans, bushes and sheets. The Cheilostomata produce mineralized exoskeletons and form single-layered sheets that encrust over surfaces.</edit_text>
<turn_user>JerryFriedman<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, October 30, 2009 3:31:25 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>A few comments</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>After the Cheilostomata are introduced in the lead, the following sentences refer to all bryozoa, not just the Cheilostomata, right? I think that could be made clearer&amp;for instance, "A few bryozoan species can creep..." I think "Autozooids supply nutrients to non-feeding zooids by channels that vary between classes" signals the switch from one class (Cheilostomata) to all classes. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)I agree, now that you mention it, but I think it needs to be signaled one sentence earlier, as I'd say the reader could easily think that only Cheilostomata species can creep. (Or is that true?) I'll reply to your comments below later. &amp;JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)The "legs" are a specific application of "vibracula" zooids, peculiar to Cheilostomata, which has the largest repertoire of zooids. --Philcha (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Got it. I think the sentence in the lead about creeping (if it belongs in the lead at all) should say that it's pecular to Cheilostomata. &amp;JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC) To me, the paragraph about the Entoprocta is relatively uninteresting, and it could go at the end, unless there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused. In general I like to see these naming issues addressed at the end. Unfortunately I think there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused: the term "bryozoa" has a slim majority over "ectoprocta", but not be much, and many sources play safe by using mentioning both terms in their introductions; and some sources have revived the older idea that "bryozoa" includes both ectoprocts and entoprocts :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)In that case I'd suggest mentioning in that paragraph in the lead that the old idea has been revived, maybe with "In the taxonomy followed here, though..." &amp;JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Both morphological and molecular phylogeny analyses disagree over..." This means morphological analyses disagree with each other and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree with each other, right? If so, I'm not sure the "both" is enough to keep readers from thinking that morphology is on one side and molecular phylogeny on the other, as I thought at first. &amp;JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC) If I saw "Both ..." I expect a statement that applies to both approaches. I suggest the alternative would be e.g. "morphological analyses indicate that ..., while molecular phylogeny analyses ...." However, if you can suggest wording you find less ambiguous but clear and concise, I'd be interested. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree that "both", as in the present article, means the statement applies to both approaches, so "Both A and B disagree" means "A disagrees and so does B". If you mean that morphological analyses indicate one thing and molecular-phylogeny analyses indicate something different, I'd suggest "Morphological analyses disagree with molecular-phylogeny analyses about bryozoans' relationships with entoprocts," etc. Another possibility is "Morphological analyses and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree..." but I think my first suggestion is clearer. &amp;JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>After the Cheilostomata are introduced in the lead, the following sentences refer to all bryozoa, not just the Cheilostomata, right? I think that could be made clearer&amp;for instance, "A few bryozoan species can creep..."</turn_text>