Details on phylum zoomastigina?
604267
Zoomastigina is sometimes considered a Phylum of Protozoan unicellular critters.\n\nThey are generally flagellate critters that do not photosynthesize.\n\nThat's about all I know, sorry.
615060
http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/classifying/index.htm\nhttp://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/guidebooks/spiders/text/a-name.htm
434770
See the links\nhttp://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/2/1/14 \nhttp://nistads.res.in/contents/genart/ga-rkk1.htm \nhttp://www.rmh.uwyo.edu/species/wybiblio.pdf \nhttp://indiaclub.com/Shop/SearchResults.asp?prodstock=12981 \nhttp://www.siu.edu/~ebl/leaflets/zafeer.htm \nhttp://www.univnorthco.edu/biology/SRMIF/SRMIFChecklistFeb04.pdf
399791
check out the following link\nhttp://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BiogIndex.html\nhttp://education.nmsu.edu/webquest/wq/math/mathpyswq.htm
628268
Very good answers by Calimecita (sorry though, the corect spelling is oxyrinchus; as you point out correctly it's named after the sharp nose, not the ancient city; it's a rather common mistake) and Haysoos.  Nonetheless, here a few other characteristics and a few thoughts about some of the characteristics mentioned.  The problem with cladistic analyses (i.e., reconstructing their phylogeny, or "family tree" if you like) of elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and rays) is that they are often based on rather poor characteristics.  Even the great Leonard Compagno used characters such as body length, which is a rather variable, and therefore unreliable characteristic.  Now, the autapomorphies (characteristics of a particular taxon, or taxonomic group) listed by Calimecita are overall rather strong and reliable characteristics.  There are always two dorsal fins, with the second one being very much smaller than the first one.  So are the presence of the anal fin and the absence of the nictitating membranes (fancy word for eyelids in sharks), but the size and postion of the mouth is not quite as good a characteristic.  The most reliable apomorphies are actually embryonic characteristics, since they seem to have the least variability.  Here, the way embryos receive nutrients during gestation is actually a very helpful trait.  (Mind you, this is nothing you can see when you see either species in the wild...)\n\nBoth Carcharodon carcharias and Isurus oxyrinchus are oophagous, which means that throughout large parts of the gestation period the mother will continue to ovulate and shuttle eggs down the isthmus of her uterus into each of the uterine horns.  There the already developing embryos eat the eggs.  At one point the embryo's stomach is so far extended it looks as if the animal has swallowed a football.\nIn one lamniform species embryophagy has been demonstrated.  In the sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), the first embryo to hatch in each uterine horne will eat its siblings before entering the oophagous phase, in which it will eat the eggs ovulated by its mother.  \n\nFurthermore, embryos of both species have functional teeth at one point in their development (meaning teeth are erect and hard).  However, unlike in C. taurus, which eats its siblings early on, C. carcharias and I. oxyrinchus form functional teeth later in development.  In a study I did some thirteen years ago (damn, time flies...) on two sister species from the same family (lamnidae), Lamna ditropis and Lamna nasus, I found that mid-term embryos actually develop two fang-like teeth, one on either side of the lower jaw, while term embryos had a full set of functional teeth.  Back then, I called them eulabetic (lat. hold fast) teeth, since we assumed that their function was to aid the embryo in holding on to the egg capsules it consumed in utero.  It would be interesting to see whether C. Caracharias and I. oxyrinchus likewise have eulabetic teeth as mid-term embryos, but it is not easy getting embryos of either.  And since we didn't observe any in the embryos we had (which were about the same developmental phase as the L. ditropis we looked at), I think that eulabetic teeth are actually one of the autapomorphies of the genus Lamna.\n\nWell, as I said, just a bit of an addition to the excellent answer of Calimecita.  A friend once asked me how to tell makos and great whites apart.  I told him that the overall headshape is slightly different, to which he said that he can't see the difference on pics or film...  I mentioned the eyes and coloration, but neither were clear enough for him.  Finally I mentioned,, that the dentition is rather specifi for both species.  Makos have elongated slightly curved teeth in the lower jaw, while great whites don't.  His response: "Listen, if I see the teeth it's too !@#$$% close!"  Good point.\n\nThanks for the fun question! Always good to get an elasmobranch question in here.
256929
The following website will help you:\n\nhttp://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
183652
It won't be easy over the internet. Try using google scholar to search for papers focused on allometry and morphometrics of long bones. You'll probably find scattered information on specific mammalian taxa.  \nHere are some useful citations (papers with lots of measurements): \nBertram JE, Biewener AA. 1990. Differential scaling of the long bones in the terrestrial carnivora and other mammals.\nJournal of Morphology 204(2):157-169.  \n\nBou J, Casinos A, Ocaña J. 1987. Allometry of the limb long bones of insectivores and rodents. Journal of Morphology 192(2):113-23.
364242
Is it the definition for Phylum Mollusca that you are looking for?\n\n Anyway..try this : http://www.answers.com/topic/mollusk
1132320
Post a message on the crytozoology website with information on your photo. They will help you.
159431
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_%28genus%29
298433
Duma, I see you've already asked this question twice. What you should do is contact some invertebrate researcher (in a museum or natural history institution) for help, because local keys and checklists of fauna are not easy to find unless one knows where to look for them.\n\nHere are some links to papers with reference to Asian species, that's the closest I could get.\nhttp://zoolstud.sinica.edu.tw/Journals/39.4/285-294.pdf\nhttp://zoolstud.sinica.edu.tw/Journals/40.4/276.pdf\nhttp://www.senckenberg.uni-frankfurt.de/odes/03-11.pdf\n\nHere's a link to a journal that specializes in invertebrate systematics:\nhttp://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/121/issue/529.htm\n\nAnd here's the citation of two papers about freshwater earthworms:\n \nOhtaka, A.; Usman, R. 1997. Records of tubificid oligochaetes from Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia, with description of a new species of Aulodrilus Bretscher. Species Diversity 2: 145-154.\nOhtaka, A.; Hartoto, D.I.; Usman, R. 2000. Preliminary study on freshwater Oligochaeta in Indonesia. Rep. Suwa Hydrobiol. 12: 29-38\n\nYou coult try to contact Mr Ohtaka.\nhttp://read.jst.go.jp/ddbs/plsql/KNKY_EG_24?code=1000003153
660144
go here... http://faculty.uca.edu/~march/bio2/ratdraw.htm
318557
Try this link:\n\nhttp://dro.hs.columbia.edu/conglacfistula.htm
742398
South American Argiope\nYou can found the website on Wikipedia.
209459
Rather than type in a long list of names like Calimecita, I will just add one.\n\nQ:  Quadralaria pyramidalis  it is a type of Cnidarian seajelly.\n\nFor fun, I may come back and do A to Z with just species of jellyfish.\n\nEDIT\nOK, here is my seajelly only list. Sadly I am missing 3 letters. J, X, Y.  I know there has to be an X somewhere but my brain is failing me this afternoon.\n\nAurelia aurita\nBerenix thalassina\nCyanea capitulatta\nDipurena brownie\nEleutheroa charcoti\nFavonia bacheri\nGossea faurea\nHippocrene brittanica\nIrenopsis hexanemelis\nJ\nKanaka pelagica\nLeptobrachia leptopus\nMastigias orsini\nNemopsis bachei\nObelia corona\nPelagia colorata\nQuadralaria pyramidalis \nRhizostoma cruciata\nSarsia eximia\nTima cari\nUmbrosa lobata\nVersura maasi\nWandelia charcotti\nX\nY\nZygocanna costada
143122
OK, first things first. \nThe anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) is a South American aquatic constrictor boa. \nPythons are Asiatic/African constrictors (mostly arboreal); they belong to a different subfamily (some authors even assign them to a different family) from South American boas. \nThe evolutionary history of the family Boidae (in a broad sense, i.e. including both these groups) is a very interesting paleontological issue; their phylogenetic (ancestral-descendant) relationships are still being discussed. \n\nAs the original question is not clear, I'd like to know if you're interested in the evolution of a particular species or the Boidae in general. \nHere's two links to papers on snake phylogeny, including the Boidae \nhttp://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu2/slowinski2002.pdf\nhttp://evo.bio.psu.edu/hedgeslab/Publications/PDF-files/67.pdf\nI'll check back :-)
552640
Super class of jawless vertebrates--Agnatha\n\nIt is further classified into 2 classes--\n\n1)Ostracodermi---extinct\n2)Cyclostomata -- the circular mouthed fishes. eg. Myxine(Hagfish) & Petromyzon(Lamprey).