- Please do. I was tired when I wrote this and couldn't really get my argument together. Totnesmartin 04:58, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Didn't want to do a double-post in the bar; may move it there once some others talk. Anyway, could anybody clarify how exactly a taxonomist is to classify a parasitic organism or recognise how it belongs to higher classes? Parasitism often means streamlining and simplifications, often to the point where they stretch the boundaries of larger groups they belong to. (First example in mind are the parasitic barnacles, that are only arthropod-like in the larval stage.) What did they do before the advent of molecular phylogenetics? I've already sent one question to the biologists, and yet to get a response. Don't want to overwhelm them. Anyone here have any background in this area or knowledge to explain this? Thanks. Flatworms are fun! Talk to me 23:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're the biology buff, but I always thought taxa were organized according to relation and evolution. Parasite is just an overarching term we use, that we've developed because of its relevance to us.
- Here, take this Wikipedia excerpt from the parasitism article: "Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host." --"Shut up, Brx." 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Invertebrate taxonomy has long taken larval forms into account; when I was a kid by big book of animals pointed out the relationships between very different creatures: starfish and sea urchins, for one, or jellyfish and coral. The answer to "what did they do before the advent of molecular phylogenetics" is "compare larval stages, internal organs, and blood and albumen proteins." SophieWilder 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)