Priya Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I would like to have anwers on the following questions: 1. What sort of mouth of mouthparts has it to capture its food 2. What sense organs does it have to locate its food 3. Does it have the same food for all its life 4. Does it change in appearance or behaviour during its breeding season 5. How many youg does a pair of these animals produce in a year i urgently need this anwers to do my assignment
ecoli Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Just so you know, the PC term for them is now Sea Stars, because they aren't really fish. http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/seastars.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish
daneeka Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 ... but a startfish is probably closer to a fish than a seahorse is to a horse.
ecoli Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 ... but a startfish is probably closer to a fish than a seahorse is to a horse. True, but a seastar *may* be more closely related to a horse than a seahorse. (not entirely sure about that, but they're both deuterostomes, while a sea horse is a protostome.)
Mokele Posted November 4, 2006 Posted November 4, 2006 Um, that's all backwards. A seahorse is a fish, and therefore shares a common ancestor with the horse about 370 mya. The starfish, on the other hand, is a totally different phylum, and has not shared a common ancestor with fish, horses, or any other vertebrate for 530 my. So technically, a sea-horse is more closely related to a horse than a star-fish is related to a fish. Also, fish (including seahorses), all other vertebrates, echinoderms, and an odd phylum called the Chaetognathes are all deuterostomes. Mokele
ecoli Posted November 4, 2006 Posted November 4, 2006 Also, fish (including seahorses), all other vertebrates, echinoderms, and an odd phylum called the Chaetognathes are all deuterostomes. Yep, of course that's right. I guess I had a brain fart or something.
daneeka Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 Hah, nice. But while, on a phylogenetic basis, a sea horse is closer to a horse than a sea star is to a fish, such relatedness is irrelevant in assigning commmon names to present taxa because common names are rarely based on phylogenies. The point is that calling a starfish a starfish is not erroneous, and anyone suggesting a common name change based on systematics is just being unessarily pedantic, because anyone interested in a species' taxonomy would use the binomial anyway.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now