User:Balakay29/sandbox

Final Draft:

Hagfish are in the group Cyclostomata which includes jawless fish. The group Cyclostomata is characterized by two significant characteristics; keratinous tooth plates and movement of postotic myomeres to the orbitals. According to fossil record, Hagfish and Lampreys have been estimated to have diverged from one another during the Paleozoic period. An experiment used an estimation of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions for nucleotides and supplemented that data with pre-existing data into a clock that would calculate divergence times for the taxons Myxine and Eptatretus. This data found that the lineage diverged around 93-28 Mya.Hagfish are excluded from the group Gnathostomata because of morphological characteristics including the Hagfish arched tongue. Hagfish embryos have characteristics of Gnathostomes and may be plesiomorphic, however these characteristics drastically change morphologically as the Hagfish matures. The following Hagfish and Lamprey phylogeny is an adaptation based on the 2006 work by Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku.

Simplified cyclostome phylogeny based on the work of Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku; † indicates extinct.

Original W/O image:

The hagfish skeleton comprises the skull, the notochord, and the caudal fin rays. The first diagram of the hagfish endoskeleton was made by Frederick Cole in 1905. In Cole's monograph, he described sections of the skeleton that he termed "pseudo-cartilage", referring to its distinct properties compared to jawed chordates. The lingual apparatus of hagfish is composed of a cartilage base bearing two teeth-covered plates (dental plate) articulated with a series of large cartilage shafts. The nasal capsule is considerably expanded in hagfish, comprising a fibrous sheath lined with cartilage rings. In contrast to lampreys, the braincase is noncartilaginous. The role of the branchial arches is highly speculative, as hagfish embryos undergo a caudal shift of the posterior pharyngeal pouches; thus, the branchial arches do not support gills. While parts of the hagfish skull are thought to be homologous with lampreys, they are thought to have very few homologous elements with jawed vertebrates.

Edited Version with image:

Hagfish skull Fig 74 in Kingsley 1912

The hagfish skeleton comprises the skull, the notochord, and the caudal fin rays. The first diagram of the hagfish endoskeleton was made by Frederick Cole in 1905. In Cole's monograph, he described sections of the skeleton that he termed "pseudo-cartilage", referring to its distinct properties compared to jawed chordates. The lingual apparatus of hagfish is composed of a cartilage base bearing two teeth-covered plates (dental plate) articulated with a series of large cartilage shafts. The nasal capsule is considerably expanded in hagfish, comprising a fibrous sheath lined with cartilage rings. In contrast to lampreys, the braincase is noncartilaginous. The role of the branchial arches is highly speculative, as hagfish embryos undergo a caudal shift of the posterior pharyngeal pouches; thus, the branchial arches do not support gills. While parts of the hagfish skull are thought to be homologous with lampreys, they are thought to have very few homologous elements with jawed vertebrates.

Blake's Peer Review Edits To Be Made:

• I will be searching through Wikipedia for images of cyclostome phylogeny and using Wikimedia to do so.
• I will correct grammar errors that I have made in my draft so that they can become public on the Wikipedia page.
• I will correct some structural errors that I have made on my draft and try to make the sentences smoother.
• I will include citation for "Hagfish embryos have characteristics of Gnathostomes and may be pleisomorphic".
• I will add more images for phylogeny of Hagfishes.

Balakay29 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 7 Peer Review Assignment:

I I peer reviewed the shark anatomists sandbox page and the cat anatomy sandbox page.

Shark Anatomist page:

Peer review: Blake[edit]

Alyssa Jordan's draft "Integument" Suggestion: I think there is useful information here and you do a great job explaining. I think if I could make a change I would change the order in which you talk about the skin of sharks. I would keep the "Skin" paragraph in the same spot and switch the paragraphs "Ampullae of Lorenzi" and "Placcoid Scales". That way it follows in a better order. The rest looks great.

Taylor Stokes Draft This was easy to read and I liked that you had placed many links to other vocabulary if the reader had a question about material. From what I see all of the links work and go to the different pages. If there is anything to change it would be sentences such as "It was found on the Shark[46] page" I do not think you need to include where you found the information that you are giving as long as it is cited and referenced in text.

Alexia Sioda's draft: Everything looks great. If I could change one thing it would be the wording of the sentence "Sharks have a constant shedding of their teeth". I think you could change the wording a little to something like "Sharks shed their teeth often..."

Overall comments: These are strong drafts already just a couple grammatical or structure changes would help make it stronger.

Balakay29 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Cat Anatomy page:

Peer review: Blake[edit]

"Abdominal Muscles" Suggestions: I think you do a great job talking about what the anatomical function is of the certain muscle. However, I think you could elaborate more on the topic to help the reader understand.

"Deltoids" - I think you did a good job summarizing this section and would much rather read your section than the original.

"Neck and Back"

"A new set of muscles allows the interconnection and is main function of respiratory muscles which pull the ribs back and forth called the intercoastal muscles. Based on the pelvic limbs, cats have a tail that is laterally to allow the balance needed for balancing weight."

Suggestions: I think there could be a different way to word the previous sentences to make it easier to understand. Also there are some grammatical errors such as "and is main function..." Comments for Ashley: Overall I believe that the only editing you will have to do is fix a few grammatical errors and change sentence structure in a few areas other than that everything looks great.

"Anatomy" Comments: For this section references should be copied and pasted as well as labeled for the certain section. In the text you can use the "cite" tool to properly reference the material. I also think you should have a heading for your references after you paste them in from what you originally had.

"Legs" "Cats are digitigrades, which means that they walk on their toes just like dogs and birds that are able to walk." Suggestions: I do not believe that you need to say "that are able to walk" because it is assumed. I think if you took that part out it would be fine. The note you also wrote at the bottom I think would be interesting information for this section and would help expand this certain section. If you listed your references at the bottom of your section for the talk page it would also be helpful even though you won't be listing them in that certain section of the Wikipedia page.

"Mouth" This section is interesting and has a lot of nice facts. I would make sure that all references are cited within text where it is needed.

Balakay29 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 6 Draft Assignment:

Original:

The following hagfish and lamprey phylogeny is an adaptation based on the 2006 work by Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku:

Simplified cyclostome phylogeny based on the work of Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku; † indicates extinct

Edited:

Hagfish are in the group cyclostomes which includes jawless fish. The group Cyclostomes is characterized by two significant characteristics; keratinous tooth plates and movement of postotic myomeres to the orbitals. According to fossil record, Hagfish and Lampreys have been estimated to have diverged from one another during the Paleozoic period. An experiment used an estimation of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions for nucleotides and supplemented that data with pre-existing data into a clock that would calculate divergence times for the taxons Myxine and Eptratus. This data found that the lineage diverged around 93-28 Mya. Hagfish are excluded from the group gnathostomes because of morphological characteristics including the Hagfish arched tongue. Hagfish embryos have characteristics of gnathostomes and may be pleisomorphic, however these characteristics drastically change morphologically as the Hagfish matures The following hagfish and lamprey phylogeny is an adaptation based on the 2006 work by Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku:

Simplified cyclostome phylogeny based on the work of Shigeru Kuratani and Shigehiro Kuraku; † indicates extinct.

Note: I would like to add pictures that way I can expand and add more detail but I do not think I can add from these scholarly articles.

Week 5 Group Assignment:

Blake's Brainstorming ideas:

I will be taking on the part of the phylogeny and will find a new table that explains how Hagfish are still vertebrates. I will need to find new sources and try to explain some more information than what is given. Hagfish lost their vertebrate due to evolution but are still considered vertebrates.

Recognizes the morphological independence of Hagfish and provides use of fossil record and identifies Hagfish and Lamprey as sister groups which once diverged during Paleozoic period.

This article is already used by the Hagfish Wikipedia page, however there is a lot of important information along with an experiment that separated Lamprey and Hagfish based on their genetic coding and used an estimation of when the two diverged from one another. The experiment that the authors conducted was a comparison based on the organism's cDNA sequences.

This article also has a great phylogenetic picture that the Wikipedia page did not use that I think would be a great addition.

Article looks at the developmental biology of Hagfish and looks at anatomical differences of reproductive anatomy for Hagfish to estimate lineage divergences.

With these 3 articles I believe I could help benefit this article in the phylogeny section. This section just needs more information. It is a problem to come to a conclusion with how these organisms are identified within a phylogenetic tree. With the above references I believe I could give a better explanation of the phylogeny of Hagfish.

References

Miyashita, Tetsuto; Coates, Michael I.; Farrar, Robert; Larson, Peter; Manning, Phillip L.; Wogelius, Roy A.; Edwards, Nicholas P.; Anné, Jennifer; Bergmann, Uwe; Palmer, A. Richard; Currie, Philip J. (2019-02-05). "Hagfish from the Cretaceous Tethys Sea and a reconciliation of the morphological–molecular conflict in early vertebrate phylogeny". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (6): 2146–2151. doi:10.1073/pnas.1814794116. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 30670644.

Kuraku, Shigehiro; Kuratani, Shigeru (2006/12). "Time Scale for Cyclostome Evolution Inferred with a Phylogenetic Diagnosis of Hagfish and Lamprey cDNA Sequences". Zoological Science. 23 (12): 1053–1064. doi:10.2108/zsj.23.1053. ISSN 0289-0003.

Ota, Kinya G.; Kuratani, Shigeru (2008-10). "Developmental Biology of Hagfishes, with a Report on Newly Obtained Embryos of the Japanese Inshore Hagfish, Eptatretus burgeri". Zoological Science. 25 (10): 999–1011. doi:10.2108/zsj.25.999. ISSN 0289-0003

Post to Jack's group sandbox before Friday at midnight. Changes do not have to be solidified but must find articles that will help create a drafted outline.

Week 4 Individual Assignment:

I would like to continue working on the page for Mammal

Although it is a solid Wikipedia page I believe there needs to be some more information added as well as some revisions.

Such revisions could be adding citations for information that does not have it. One such citation I have already added was for the threats section of the article concerning the poaching of elephants for ivory. Other revisions could be making other sections longer. I believe there should be more information on the anatomy section as well as the communication section of the page. The fur section could also be elaborated on.

Another page I may be able to work on would be the Agnatha

This page seems very short and looks like it may need some work.

I believe this page needs some additions in order to make it a more reliable and informative page. I would like to add an anatomy section to this page and that would be quite a bit of work but I think this article may need it. The Mammal page has decent information on the anatomy page and I think researching Agnatha anatomy and including it would help this page out.

A page I could work on related to mammals would be the Primates

This page has a clone section with not a lot of information. I also believe that there has been many tests on monkeys such as the Rhesus macaque that has helped us understand certain biological components of humans and that is not listed in this page.

Dr. Schutz am I doing this right? I really want to do well in this class but am confused by some of these assignments still I will stay after class and talk to you about it. Thank you.

Week 3 Individual Assignment:

How the sentences are in the article right now:

Another influence is over-hunting and poaching, which can reduce the overall population of game animals, especially those located near villages, as in the case of peccaries. The effects of poaching can especially be seen in the ivory trade with African elephants.^{[citation needed]}

Changes I would make include adding a proper citation as well as including other facts that show poaching elephants for ivory.

How I would change the phrasing:

Another influence is over-hunting and poaching, which can reduce the overall population of game animals, especially those located near villages, as in the case of peccaries. The effects of poaching can especially be seen in the ivory trade with African elephants. In 2011 the amount of ivory obtained by poachers had tripled within a decade and an estimated 17,000 elephants were slaughtered.

Feedback: Discussion and Adding to an Article

• I don't see a section with your notes on the discussion topics
• like that you gave me the original text and then the proposed changes. That makes it all very clear for me and it will be a very good way for you to communicate and exchange info with your team.
• I tried the link for the resource you cited and that link is not working...so I could not really check it. Ask me for help in lab this coming week about this.
• Remember to "sign" your work after submission. Even though this is your sandbox and you do not need to do it, get into the habit as it is an expectation of good faith practice when contributing to articles or talk page.
• I think your suggestions are promising and could benefit the quality of the article. I'd like to see you submit this idea to the article talk page (this is ABSOLUTELY up to you).
• A benefit of doing that is the potential feedback of other Wikipedians working on this page. They can help direct your potential edits and point you in useful directions.
• Looks like you are starting to get the hang of this. Well done!Osquaesitor (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Goal Tracker:

• Week 2: I will get all of my work on time for the rest of the semester. I will accomplish this by staying on track and working hard every night even with baseball practices/games and taking 17 credits. I cannot afford to be behind on my schoolwork.
• Week 3: I will get my individual lab assignments done early this week and finish up my training. I will also look to see what I can possibly add or change for the Mammal article to help improve it.

Individual assignment: Article Evaluation

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
• After reviewing the article it seems most of the article stays on topic. I did not get distracted by much other than the random pictures it had. There was one Gif which I thought was a bit distracting.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article remained neutral and did not seem to be heavily biased. I think it is mainly just trying to describe the anatomy of certain animals not trying to take a particular position.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Most viewpoints are supported by scholarly articles and backed with some kind of evidence or other source

Check a few citations.

• Are they properly formatted? From what I have found yes
• Do the links work? All of the links I came across worked.
• Does the source support the claims in the article? The sources I have read do.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The sources I came across were neutral sources. Some of the links direct you to another Wikipedia page which can be reliable and sometimes cannot be.

Are there any instances of plagiarism on the page? I have not seen any yet.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? A communication page on mammals would be a good section to add. My group partners had all talked and we came to a decision that we would like to add one.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most conversations are about images within these talk pages behind the scenes.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Could not find this particular part of the article. Did not see any Wikiprojects

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There are not a lot of phylogenies disicussed within the article. There is more overview of what mammals are in detail within the article rather than comparing them to others.