Kommunal.az

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Aquarium Fishes Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article walked through the organism's appearance and physiology. The article then moved into the multitude of species that are part of the Daphnia genus before discussing its existence within different ecosystems. On the topic of ecology, the paper emphasized its predation and reproductive habits/life cycles and briefly discussed parasitism within the organism. The paper ended with a brief discussion of conservation methods, uses in research methods, and also included a brief description of the invasiveness of Daphnia in North America. In terms of strengths, most of the writing was very clear, though, I think it could have benefited from brief descriptions of more technical terms like saltatory swimming style. It also had broad coverage ranging from the anatomy to the conservation but didn’t go into unnecessary detail. The most interesting fact I learned was that it had a translucent carapace which allows a researcher to observe its circulatory system and heartbeat very easily. I think one category which can be added might be uses in research. While the paper emphasizes how its anatomy is uniquely suited for research methods and how its a model organism, it would be interesting to see what experiments these crustacean they have been used in. One category which could be developed from the ecology section would be relationship with other organisms. The page discussed competition but I would be interested to learn more about competition within water fleas. Most other animals also have a section of etymology which is missing from this page and could help with communication and comprehension of the species based on linguistic origin. Girlwholikesbirds (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Linnean species? no information of the one who discovered is provided here, nor the year of discovery. Quantumash (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Linnaean classifications are provided. While the year of discovery is disputed because of their long history of research. This article provides an adequate and useful description of Daphnia that is frequently updated.Joeybrown8 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the name "Daphnia", without explaining - is "Daphnia" a synonym of "Water flea", or just one type of water flea? If the former, let's create a redirection from "Daphnia" to "Water flea". If the latter, why mention the daphnia specifically, and why not define it when first used in this article? Nyh 13:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Daphnia is the name of the genus. Some species of Daphnia sufficiently well-known might be given the less "alien" name. Another example is Felis Leo being called a lion. Such names can be expected to be inaccurate from a taxonomical perspective. An antlion bears no significant relation to either animal, members of the genus Felis are often referred to as cats, but it's unusual to speak of a tiger as a cat. Nor is a wolf, Canis Lupus, frequently called a dog.

Still, I believe it would be perfectly alright to refer to any member of Daphnia as a "water flea".

I agree. You can call any member of the Daphnia genus a "water flea" but not all "water fleas" are Daphnias. So Daphnia is not a synonym for "Water Flea" and neither is "Water flea" a synonym for Daphnia.
Velela 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After >10yr in the Daphnia research community, I've concluded there is no universally accepted boundary to the term "water flea." All would apply "water flea" to any species of the genus Daphnia (none of which individually have common names), and the vast majority wouldn't think twice about including the other five genera of Daphniidae (though most wouldn't use the term for anything other than Daphnia, Ceriodaphnia & Simocephalus). Including the sister families (Bosminidae & Moinidae) is widespread, but beyond that the term is inconsistently used, though I think few would take issue with equating "water flea" with "Cladocera." I suspect this is because the saltatory movements are not the sole (or main?) reason for the nickname. When originally described, the rostrum was likened to the sucking mouth parts of fleas, and it was thought that they fed on blood -- in hypoxic waters, most Daphnia produce hemoglobin and easily look engorged with blood. Outside of the Daphnia genus, few Cladocera have all three characteristics: saltation, a pointy rostrum, and hemoglobin production. Don't know about use of the term among aquarists. Brunsweiler 04:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is not the research community that asign common names to animals or groups of animals. I personally would be happy to reserve the name Water flea to the Cladocera but many suppliers of live fish-food will continue to use a much wider definition encompassing almost any motile small freshwater arthropod. As with all common names, we probably have to accept what the common usage is, no matter how non-discriminating it may seem. I therefore agree that to describe all Daphniidæ as being Water fleas is fine, but to say that all Water fleas are Daphniidæ would be incorrect.Velela 21:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me "saltatory" should not be linked to "Saltation". Dan Gluck 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - it was the Saltation disambig page that was incomplete - now corrected. although I do agree that this is not the best way of linking this Mrs Trellis 08:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article on epigenetics mentions this:

To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines. The effect can last for several generations.

--AOL 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I stumble on this sentence in the text: "The original Daphnia is thought to be a mutation of the human embryo from the pressures discussed above." If this is vandalism it should be deleted. If it is science it needs a damn good explanation.

--Lupo Manaro 09:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this entry. JoJan 13:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

little study is done on the crustaceans although they have the same number of known species as us vertebrates, they are sequencing this guys genome which is uber important for crustaceans, but it is not mentioned, whereas it should be written even on the crustacean page... --Squidonius (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page, at the info box specifically, I found this:

"...*Subgenus Daphnia xbjhzkldfhhhhhjladkfjhpoaeuy9w4iopqgh8454z5s84rdfb

D. prolata..."

What is with that string of nonsensical characters...? Cream10152 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I have heard in a lecture of the course "Evolution- BIOL-304-001" taught by the University of McGill, that is not a picture of a Daphnia with eggs, but a picture of Daphnia that is infected by spores (?) of a protozoan parasite.--Esteloth (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but the source for the image, The US Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center [1] have the caption "Adult Daphnia magna with eggs", and doing an google image search for "daphnia eggs" turns up several similar images all referencing "Daphnia with eggs". Nothing that I could find about spores of a protozoan parasite. In addition, this article suggests that parasitic spores of Daphnia are much smaller in size than in this picture. here is another article discussing parasites of Daphnia, but I haven't crawled through it in great detail. Neil916 (Talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be thrown off by this article, which uses the same photo in a discussion of parasitic infections of Daphnia, but the photo appears to be used to illustrate Daphnia in general, not an infected specimen, although its placement in the article looks suspiciously like someone tried to portray it as an example of an infected specimen (which, as I mentioned before, could be right). Google images for "Daphnia parasites" (don't know why I didn't also do that one earlier) shows some images of infected Daphnia. Neil916 (Talk) 16:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, the image, even of such a small size, looks identical to Daphnia I have studied with eggs forming in the brood pouch. It would seem very strange for parasites to be exclusively restricted to the brood pouch. It is much more likely that parasites would be distributed more generally within the carapace and even more likely if they were concentrated around the gut or around the feeding appendages depending on the specie of parasite involved. Velela (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daphnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050124131431/http://daphnia.cgb.indiana.edu/ to http://daphnia.cgb.indiana.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daphnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928142228/http://www.waterflea.org/ to http://www.waterflea.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Дафния 1.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Daphnia spp. are a popular live food in tropical and marine fish keeping. They are often fed to tadpoles or small species of amphibians such as the African dwarf frog (Hymenochirus boettgeri)."

I have had aquariums as a hobby for over 50 years. In all that time period I have never seen Daphnia as live food being sold at an Aquarium or Pet Store. I do know that one can go online and buy some for their own culture, and I know that William Innes book, (last edition 1966), talks about live Daphnia as a Fish Food, yet this is not a "Popular live foor in tropical and marine fish keeping." Possibly, one can buy frozen Daphnia, yet most people in the Aquarium hobby buy Frozen Brine Shrimp, and Fish Stores used to sell Live Brine Shrimp when I was young. What is very popular is Flake Fish Food, and Cichlid Pellets, Live Daphnia is not "Popular."Easeltine (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it may depend on where you live. It may also be something that is now in the past. As a child in the 1950s, I used to buy plastic bags of Daphnia for my single goldfish from the market in Birmingham (UK). I guess if there are no RSs for the continued existence of this trade, the text should be removed. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However that are sites like this and this which suggests that the trade is alive and well, at least in the UK.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]