text:
USS Johnston (DD-557)

USS Johnston (DD-557) was a Fletcher-class destroyer built for the United States Navy during World War II. She was named after Lieutenant John V. Johnston, an officer of the US Navy during the American Civil War. Johnston was laid down in May 1942 and was launched on 25 March 1943. She entered active duty on 27 October 1943 under the command of Lieutenant Commander Ernest E. Evans and was assigned to the US Pacific Fleet. Johnston provided naval gunfire support for American ground forces during the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign in January and February 1944 and again, after three months of patrol and escort duty in the Solomon Islands, during the recapture of Guam in July. Thereafter, Johnston was tasked with escorting escort carriers during the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign and the liberation of the Philippines.

On 25 October 1944, while assigned as part of the escort to six escort carriers, Johnston, two other Fletcher-class destroyers, and four destroyer escorts were engaged by a large Imperial Japanese Navy flotilla. In what became known as the Battle off Samar, Johnston and the other escort ships charged the Japanese ships to protect nearby US carriers and transport craft. After engaging several Japanese capital ships and a destroyer squadron, Johnston was sunk with 187 dead, including Evans. Johnston's wreck was discovered on 30 October 2019 but was not properly identified until March 2021. Lying more than 20,000 ft below the surface of the ocean, it was the deepest shipwreck ever surveyed until the 22 June 2022 discovery of USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413), sunk during the same engagement.

Design and characteristics
To rectify the top-heaviness and stability problems of the preceding Benson-class destroyer and Gleaves-class destroyeres, the Fletcher class was greatly increased in size over the older designs. This allowed them to accept additional anti-aircraft (AA) guns and electronic equipment as well as their operators without sacrificing guns or torpedoes as the older ships were forced to do during the war. The Fletchers displaced 2100 LT at standard load and 2544 LT at deep load, roughly 30 percent more than the Bensons and Gleaves.

In early 1942, the design of the Fletchers was modified to reduce top weight and to simplify the construction of the bridge by squaring off the curves at its front. One deck was removed from the aft superstructure and the base of the fire-control director above the bridge was shortened by 6 ft. The splinter plating protecting the bridge and the director was also reduced in thickness. In addition, visibility from the bridge was improved by the addition of an open platform connected to the bridge wings.

The ships had an overall length of 376 ft, with a draft of 17 ft and beam of 39 ft. The ships were powered by two General Electric geared steam turbines that each drove one propeller shaft using steam provided by four Babcock & Wilcox boilers. The turbines produced 60,000 shp which was intended to give the ships a top speed of 37.8 kn. The destroyers carried enough fuel oil to give them a range of 4490 nmi at 15 kn. They were crewed by 9 officers and 264 enlisted men.

Armament, fire control, protection and sensors
The main battery of the Fletcher-class destroyers consisted of five dual-purpose 5 in/38 caliber guns in single mounts which were grouped in superfiring pairs fore and after of the superstructure. The fifth mount was positioned on the aft superstructure forward of the aft pair. The guns were controlled by the Mark 37 director. Their anti-aircraft battery depended on the availability of the weapons, but Johnston was built with ten 40 mm Bofors guns in five powered twin-gun mounts and seven manually operated 20 mm Oerlikon cannons. The forward pair of Bofors mounts were located forward of the bridge and the second pair were on platforms abreast the aft funnel with one mount on each broadside; the last mount was positioned between the aft superfiring pair of guns and the single mounts forward of them. Each mount was controlled by a nearby Mark 51 director. Four Oerlikons were located amidships, two on each broadside, and three were grouped in a triangle at the stern, next to the depth charge racks.

The ships were fitted with two racks, each holding eight 600 lb depth charges and adjacent to them were two storage racks with five depth charges each. Abreast the aft superstructure were six "K-gun" throwers, three on each side, with five 300 lb depth charges. The destroyers were equipped with two quintuple rotating 21 in torpedo tube mounts for Mark 15 torpedoes.

The Fletchers had only minimal armor that was intended to protect against shell splinters and fragments. The sides of the propulsion machinery compartments consisted of plates 0.75 in of special treatment steel (STS) while the deck above them consisted of 0.5 in STS. The "square bridge" ships like Johnston had the splinter armor of the bridge reduced from the 0.75-inch armor of the earlier "round bridge" ships to 0.25 in. Furthermore, the protective plating of the Mark 37 director was reduced from the earlier 0.75 inches to 0.5 inches. The Fletcher-class destroyers were equipped with a Mark 4 or Mark 12 fire-control radar on the roof of the Mark 37 director. A SC-2 early-warning radar and a SG surface-search radar were fitted on the foremast. For anti-submarine work, the ships used a QC series sonar.

Construction and service history
Construction of Johnston, named after Lieutenant John V. Johnston, an officer of the US Navy during the American Civil War, began with the laying of her keel at the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation's yard on 6 May 1942. Her launch, sponsored by Marie S. Klinger, Lt. Johnston's grandniece, took place on 25 March 1943. Johnston was finally commissioned into the United States Navy and placed under the command of Lieutenant Commander Ernest E. Evans, a man of Native American Cherokee descent who previously commanded the elderly destroyer USS Alden which partook in the Battle of the Java Sea, on 27 October 1943. She then sailed to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and fitted out into early November. On 15 November, Johnston sailed for San Diego, California. From 19 November to 1 January 1944, Johnston put out to sea for her shakedown cruise and her crew trained with fleet units near San Diego.

Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign

On 13 January 1944 Johnston set sail for Hawaii with a US Navy squadron led by Rear Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf and arrived 21 January. From there, Johnston sailed to join the ongoing campaign against the Japanese Empire in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands. She arrived by 29 January and was assigned to Fire Support Group 53.5 under Oldendorf. On 30 January, she screened for the cruisers USS Santa Fe (CL-60), USS Biloxi, USS Indianapolis (CA-35), and the battleship USS Maryland (BB-46) as they provided naval gunfire support for American forces in the Wotje Atoll. Johnston sailed for the Kwajalein Atoll, where from 31 January to 3 February she provided gunfire support for American forces attacking Roi-Namur Island.

Johnston was reassigned on 5 February 1944 to escort transport ships to the Ellice Islands with destroyers USS Haraden (DD-585) and USS Stansbury (DMS-8), and the destroyer-minesweeper USS Long. The convoy set sail on 6 February but en route Johnston was ordered to return to the Marshalls for resupply. She arrived on 8 February, refueled, and then set sail for Kwajalein on 10 February. Her arrival was delayed until the next day after jellyfish clogged and overheated her condensers.

Almost as soon Johnston arrived, she was tasked with investigating a sighting of a Japanese submarine. No such vessel was detected. Early on 12 February, Japanese bombers attacked Roi-Namur, inflicting heavy casualties to the occupying Americans. In response to their detection on radar, Johnston and the other present American ships laid smoke to obscure their positions. They were not attacked. Over the next three days, Johnston resupplied, took on supplies from USS New Mexico (BB-40), 5 in shells from USS Ringgold (DD-500), and fuel oil from USS Suamico (AO-49). Johnston was then attached to Operation Catchpole, the American attack on Enewetak Atoll. From 16 February to 18 February, Johnston screened for USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Colorado (BB-45), USS Tennessee (BB-43), Indianapolis, and cruisers USS Portland (CA-33) and USS Louisville (CA-28) as they bombarded Engebi Island. Then, from 19 February to 25 February, Johnston provided gunfire support for American troops herself and patrolled for submarines.

Solomon Islands campaign
On 25 February 1944, Johnston was relieved of patrol duty and was assigned to screen the escort carrier USS Manila Bay (CVE-61) with USS Hoel (DD-533). The trio was ordered back to the Marshall Islands on 28 February and arrived on 1 March. Johnston resupplied over the next five days. On 7 March the flotilla, joined by USS Natoma Bay (CVE-62), sailed for Espiritu Santo and arrived on 13 March. Johnston docked in the auxiliary floating drydock USS Waterford (ARD-5) for minor repairs from 18 to 19 March, then set out for the Solomon Islands on 20 March. She arrived at Purvis Bay, near Guadalcanal, the following day and was subsequently assigned to patrol duties around New Ireland. On 27–28 March, Johnston and her sister ships USS Franks (DD-554), USS Haggard (DD-555), and USS Hailey (DD-556) were dispatched to bombard Kapingamarangi Atoll, in the Caroline Islands. Upon their return to the Solomons on 29 March, the destroyers were assigned additional patrol duties. For the rest of March and all of April, they patrolled the northern Solomons, escorted Allied shipping to and from them, and occasionally provided gunfire support for the US Army's XIV Corps on Bougainville Island.

Johnston began May 1944 moored in Purvis Bay undergoing minor repairs. On 6 May, she sailed to New Georgia with Franks, Haggard, Hailey, and Hoel to screen for USS Montpelier (CL-57) and USS Cleveland (CL-55) and then for a minelaying operation between Bougainville and Buka Island on 10 May. Two days later, Haggard, Franks and Johnston were alerted by an American scout plane to the presence of the JSUB I-176 off Buka. The destroyers immediately began searching for the vessel and, late on 16 May, discovered it. Haggard, then Johnston, and then Franks attacked the submarine with depth charges and sank it after midnight on 17 May. The destroyers resumed their anti-submarine patrols on 18 May, then screened for Montpelier, Cleveland, and USS Birmingham (CL-62) as they shelled Japanese coastal guns on the Shortland Islands two days later. Johnston thereafter resumed patrol and escort duty, then docked with the destroyer tender USS Dixie (AD-14) for minor repairs from 27 May to 2 June.

Mariana and Palau Islands campaign

On 3 June 1944, Johnston joined a convoy of US warships headed to Kwajalein to join a fleet gathering to recapture Guam. The convoy arrived on 8 June, then made for Guam four days later with the invasion force and arrived by 18 June. The ongoing Battle of Saipan, however, delayed the invasion. On 30 June, the fleet was ordered to return to Kwajalein; Johnston arrived on 3 July and returned to patrol duty. When the invasion force was ordered back to Guam on 14 July, Johnston again sailed as part of its screen. The fleet arrived four days later. From 21 July to 1 August, Johnston joined several battleships, cruisers, and destroyers to furnish gunfire support for the 1st Marine Brigade and the 77th Infantry Division. Afterwards, from 2 August to 9 August, she screened for American ships. On 9 August, Johnston was ordered, with Franks, Haggard, Haily, USS Halford (DD-480), USS Guest (DD-472), USS Minneapolis (CA-36), Cleveland, and USS Honolulu (CL-48) to return to the Marshalls.

The flotilla arrived on 12 August, resupplied, and then sailed for Espiritu Santo from 19 August to 24 August. Three days later, after undergoing minor repairs, Johnston set sail for Purvis Bay with Pennsylvania, USS Idaho (BB-42), Louisville, Minneapolis, and seven other destroyers. The flotilla arrived on 29 August and joined escort carriers USS Marcus Island (CVE-77), USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79), USS Petrof Bay (CVE-80), USS Kalinin Bay (CVE-68), with whom Johnston trained for carrier escort duty. On 4 September, Johnston, Haggard, Hailey, and USS Welles (DD-628), escorting Petrof Bay, Kalinan Bay, and USS Saginaw Bay (CVE-82), set sail for the Palau Islands and the invasions of Peleliu and of Angaur. Johnston escorted these escort carriers until 18 September, when Johnston was reassigned to escort USS Kitkun Bay (CVE-71), USS White Plains (CVE-66), and USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73). Johnston and her charges received orders on 21 September to proceed to Ulithi, an atoll in the Caroline Islands, where they arrived on 23 September.

Battle off Samar
The flotilla departed Ulithi on 25 September 1944 and arrived in Seeadler Harbor, in the Admiralty Islands on 1 October 1944. There, on 12 October, Johnston was assigned to the US 7th Fleet, which was preparing to invade the Philippines. Johnston was attached, with Hoel, USS Heermann, and the destroyer escorts USS Dennis, USS John C. Butler, USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413), and USS Raymond (DE-341), to the escort carriers USS Fanshaw Bay (CVE-70), USS St. Lo, White Plains, Gambier Bay, Kalinin Bay, and Kitkun Bay. These ships formed TU 77.4.3 (call sign "Taffy 3"), a sub-unit of the 7th Fleet's Escort Carrier Group (TG 77.4) commanded by Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague, aboard Fanshaw Bay, and sailed into Leyte Gulf on 17 October.

In response to the Invasion of the Philippines, on 18 October, the Imperial Japanese Navy dispatched three fleets to cut off and destroy the American ground forces. The largest fleet was placed under the command of Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita and took a path that, on 25 October, led it to TG 77.4.

Though Kurita's fleet – by 25 October numbering four battleships, eight cruisers, and 11 destroyers – had been attacked by US submarines and aircraft over the previous two days, TG 77.4 was not made aware of the Japanese force until Taffy 3's surface radar detected it at 0646. Johnston, 34,000 yds south-east from the Japanese, was informed of its presence at 0650; eight minutes later, the Japanese opened fire, beginning the Battle off Samar. The force was led by Kurita's flagship, the battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Yamato, the largest and most powerfully armed and armored battleship ever built, displacing 72,808 tons and armed with nine 18.1-inch (46 cm) guns. Escorting Yamato came the older but still capable battleships JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Nagato, JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Kongō, and JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Haruna, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers.

Johnston's torpedo charge

At 0657, Sprague ordered Taffy 3 to head east at top speed and lay smoke. Despite the overwhelming odds against the force, finding Johnston at the rear of the formation, Commander Ernest E. Evans ordered a turn to the northeast so that Johnston could charge the Japanese for a torpedo attack and lay smoke to cover the flotilla's escape. Charging at the enemy, Johnston would come under fire from several ships. Nagato fired a single full salvo from her 16.1-inch (41 cm) guns, while Haruna fired numerous 6-inch (152 mm) secondary shells, but all missed their mark as Johnston remained undamaged. At 07:10, Johnston singled out a target, the heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Kumano, leading a column of cruisers, as she sailed into the 18,000 yd range of Johnston's 5-inch (127 mm) main battery. Kumano and her sister ship JAPANESE CRUISER Suzuya fired off numerous salvos, but again, not a single Japanese shell hit the American destroyer. In contrast Johnston fired more than 200 main battery shells at Kumano over the next five minutes, striking the cruiser at least 45 times and setting her superstructure on fire. Then, having closed to 10000 yd, Johnston fired all 10 of her torpedoes at Kumano and then turned to hide in her own smoke. The exact amount of hits is unknown, but at least one torpedo hit Kumano and blew off her bow, forcing her out of the battle alongside Suzuya to escort her, right as a 14-inch (356 mm) shell from Kongo landed mere inches from Johnston (but did not hit her), spraying red dye on the hull. Dashing back to the escort carriers, Commander Evans forced two heavy cruisers out of the engagement without being hit by a single Japanese projectile.

Damage from Yamato
However, at 0730, at 20300 yd, battleship Yamato engaged a US "cruiser" and fired a single full nine gun broadside. Suddenly, three 18.1-inch (46 cm) shells smashed into Johnston. Seconds later, three 6.1-inch (155 mm) shells out of six fired from Yamato's secondary battery made their mark. The damage was initially recorded as three 14-inch (356 mm) shells from Kongō at a distance of 14250 yd, but Japanese records displayed Kongō to be much farther and blinded by a rain squall, unable to fire her guns, as where Yamato claimed numerous hits with her main and secondary guns on a US "cruiser" at the same exact moment Johnston was hit. The light cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Noshiro and the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Kishinami also observed Yamato sinking a US "cruiser" matching Johnston's location.

Having mistaken Johnston for a cruiser, Yamato fired armour-piercing ammunition from her main guns, which over penetrated Johnston's unarmored hull without exploding. Still, the damage resulted in numerous casualties as Yamato's 6.1-inch (155 mm) shells mostly landed upon her superstructure. One landed amidships, taking out an AA fire director, while the remaining two hit forward, tearing into the torpedo director and shredding the bridge, blowing off two of Evans's fingers and his shirt, and causing the loss of her gyrocompass. Meanwhile, two 18.1-inch (46 cm) shells landed amidships, severely damaging Johnston's engines, cutting her speed to 17 kn. The remaining 18.1-inch (46 cm) shell hit two thirds down the ship, cutting power to all of Johnston's 5-inch (127 mm) guns. Hidden in her smoke and a rain squall for the next ten minutes, Johnston's crew restored power to the forward main guns. The third was permanently disconnected from fire control and had to be operated manually.

Defense of the escort carriers
After turning south to rejoin Taffy 3, Johnston encountered Hoel, Heermann, and Samuel B. Roberts, en route to make their own torpedo attacks. Despite such immense damage, Evans turned Johnston around to follow and support them, in the process exchanging gunfire with the heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Haguro. By 0820, the escorts had launched their torpedoes and turned south, making smoke and still exchanging fire with the Japanese, to rejoin Taffy 3. This was accomplished by 0840, when Heermann and Johnston, enveloped in smoke, nearly collided. At that time, Johnston spotted Kongō, 7,000 yd distant, fired 30 shells at her, and then evaded returned fire from Kongō. Johnston next sighted Gambier Bay, immobile, listing to port, and under fire from numerous warships, and briefly fired on the heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Chikuma as the remaining destroyers attempted to cover her, achieving partial success at their own risk as Hoel was sunk by gunfire from Kongō, a heavy cruiser, and Yamato's secondary battery, while Chikuma engaged in an intense point blank range duel with Heermann and Samuel B. Roberts (Yamato still targeted Gambier Bay with her main guns, which would later sink at 0911). Johnston ceased fire as six Japanese destroyers led by the light cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Yahagi approached the other carriers.

Johnston engaged the entire squadron, opening fire on Yahagi at 0850 from 10,000 yards and closed to 7000 yds. Johnston attempted to cross the squadron's T, limiting them to their forward guns, but the Japanese squadron reacted, turning and engaging the American destroyer with their broadsides. Johnston hit Yahagi 12 times and was in turn struck by several 5-inch (127 mm) shells. Yahagi scored critical damage as at least two 6-inch (152 mm) shells hit the bow and disabled Johnston's remaining 5-inch (127 mm) guns, leaving her completely defenseless and starting a large fire that forced the evacuation of the bridge. Yahagi was then strafed by US aircraft, turned to starboard and disengaged. Johnston turned her fire on the Japanese destroyers, which soon also banked starboard and, with Yahagi, discharged their torpedoes at the carriers without effect. The destroyers then focused on Johnston, and, in short order, denuded her of her main mast, last engine, rendered the bridge uninhabitable, and set much of the ship ablaze. Evans moved his command to the fantail, where, at 0945, he ordered the crew to abandon ship, as under sustained and intense gunfire damage, Johnston began to split apart around two thirds down the ship where she was hit by an 18.1-inch (46 cm) shell from Yamato earlier in the battle. At 1010, Johnston rolled over and sank. As she sank, the crew of the JAPANESE DESTROYER Yukikaze sailed past Johnston and saluted her crew. Of her complement of 327 men, 186 men and officers died. Commander Ernest E Evans was observed abandoning ship in a lifeboat but was never seen again and presumed dead. The remaining 141 men were rescued by American vessels after 50 hours at sea. Johnston was struck from the Navy Register on 27 November 1944.

Awards
Johnston received six battle stars and, for the action at Samar, a Presidential Unit Citation. For the same action, Commander Evans was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Wreck discovery
On 30 October 2019, the research vessel (RV) RV Petrel, belonging to Vulcan Inc., discovered the remains of what was believed to be Johnston at the bottom of the Philippine Trench. The remains consisted of a deck gun, a propeller shaft, and some miscellaneous debris that could not be used to identify the wreck, but additional debris was observed lying deeper than the RV could reach. On 31 March 2021, the research vessel DSV Limiting Factor of Caladan Oceanic, financed and piloted by Victor Vescovo, surveyed and photographed the deeper wreck and definitively identified it as Johnston at a depth of 21180 ft. Until USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) was discovered on 22 June 2022, Johnston was the deepest discovered shipwreck in the world.

Naval historian Parks Stevenson created a 3-D model of Johnston's wreck which shows just how much damage the ship took, and the state the wreck is in. The forward two thirds of the hull still sit upright with her forward 5-inch (127 mm) guns and rangefinder turned to starboard at the enemy ships she faced before she went down. Her hull number, 557, is still a bright white and clearly visible, and her hull is buried in the sand up to the waterline. Enemy damage plagues Johnston as shell holes from numerous destroyers and Yahagi riddle the ship, punching into the sides and wrecking her superstructure, and Johnston split in two where she was hit by an 18.1-inch (46 cm) shell from Yamato, leaving Johnston's back third undiscovered, if it is even recognizable. Despite that, the bridge is still fully intact and recognizable, with damage from a 6.1-inch (155 mm) shell from Yamato's secondary battery putting a hole beneath where Evans commanded the ship. Her AA guns are still trained, and several holes in Johnston line up with accounts of enemy damage (such as a 5-inch (127 mm) destroyer shell plunging into the superstructure and disabling her radio control).

title: USS Johnston (DD-557)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Mayhem

I think Poccil wanted to post this, but it doesn't appear anywhere. No idea what this is about, though it mentions Lori Alan so it might mean something to someone. Ianb 20:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Must be a cartoon synopsis. Since no one knows what it is.... Geogre 01:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like kiddie-wiki from a "Danny Phantom" fan who's been watching entirely too much Nickelodeon. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete if not confirmed that it's real. Allegedly a Danny Phantom episode but fan sites (e.g. ) do not list it. Andris 11:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * If I had seen it pop up on New pages, I would have speedy deleted it under case #4 for a complete lack of context. Now that I know the context, it's just a regular delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Tarawa

Tarawa is an atoll and the capital of the Republic of Kiribati, in the Micronesia region of the central Pacific Ocean. It comprises North Tarawa, which has 6,629 inhabitants and much in common with other more remote islands of the Gilbert group, and South Tarawa, which has 56,388 inhabitants, half of the country's total population. The atoll was the site of the Battle of Tarawa during World War II.

Etymology
Tarawa is an old Gilbertese form for Te Rawa, meaning "The Passage" (of the Lagoon), named for the unusual large ship channel to the lagoon. In the popular etymology based on Kiribati mythology, Nareau, the God-spider, distinguished Karawa, the sky, from Marawa, the Sea, from Tarawa, the land.

Geography
Tarawa has a large lagoon, 500 km2 in total area, and a wide reef. The lagoon is widely open to the ocean, with a large ship pass. Although naturally abundant in fish and shellfish of all kinds, marine resources are being strained by the large and growing population. Drought is frequent, but in normal years rainfall is sufficient to maintain breadfruit, papaya and banana trees as well as coconut and pandanus.

North Tarawa consists of a string of islets from Buariki in the north to Buota in the south. The islets are separated in places by wide channels that are best crossed at low tide, and there is a ferry service between Buota and Abatao. Only Buota is connected by road to South Tarawa, via a bridge.

On South Tarawa, the construction of causeways has now created a single strip of land from Betio in the west to Tanaea in the northeast. Previously, Benito, the site of the battle of Tarawa, was only 291 acres in size.

Climate
Tarawa features a tropical rainforest climate under the Köppen climate classification. The climate is pleasant from April to October, with predominant northeastern winds and stable temperatures close to 30 C. From November to March, western gales bring rain and occasional cyclones.

Precipitation varies significantly between islands. For example, the annual average is 3,000 mm (120 in) in the north and 500 mm (20 in) in the south of the Gilbert Islands. Most of these islands are in the dry belt of the equatorial oceanic climatic zone and experience prolonged droughts.

Administration
Tarawa atoll has three administrative subdivisions: Betio Town Council (or BTC), on Betio Islet; Teinainano Urban Council (or TUC), from Bairiki to Tanaea; and Eutan Tarawa Council (or ETC), for North Tarawa or Tarawa Ieta, consisting of all the islets on the east side from Buota northwards. The meaning of Te inainano in Gilbertese language is "down of the mast", alluding to the sail-shape of the atoll

South Tarawa hosts the capital of the Republic of Kiribati and was also the central headquarters of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands since 1895. The House of Assembly is in Ambo, and the State House is in Bairiki. The offices of the various ministries of the government range from Betio at the south-west extreme to Nawerewere (on an easterly island in its chain), close to Bonriki (International Airport) and Temwaiku. Settlements on North Tarawa include Buariki, Abaokoro, Marenanuka and Taborio.

Diplomatic missions
Four resident diplomatic missions exist: the embassies of China (closed in 2003, re-opened in 2020) and Japan (opened in 2023), and the high commissions of Australia and New Zealand. The United Nations are also present in Kiribati, including UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS, UN Women, WHO and FAO.

History

In Kiribati mythology, Tarawa was the earth when the land, ocean and sky had not been cleaved yet by Nareau the spider. Thus, after calling the sky karawa and the ocean marawa, he called the piece of rock that Riiki (another god that Nareau found) had stood upon when he lifted up the sky as, Tarawa. Nareau then created the rest of the islands in Kiribati and also Samoa.

Gilbertese arrived at these islands thousands of years ago, and there have been migrations to and from Gilbert Islands since antiquity.

Evidence from a range of sources, including carbon dating and DNA analyses, confirms that the exploration of the Pacific included settlement of the Gilbert Islands by around 200 BC. The people of Tungaru (native name of the Gilbertese) are still excellent seafarers, capable of making ocean crossings in locally made vessels using traditional navigation techniques.

Thomas Gilbert, captain of the East India Company vessel Charlotte, was the first European to describe Tarawa, arriving on 20 June 1788. He did not land. He named it Matthew Island, after the owner of his ship Charlotte. He named the lagoon Charlotte Bay. Gilbert's 1788 sketches survive.

The island was surveyed in 1841 by the US Exploring Expedition.

For nine generations, the island was divided between two warring factions, the House of Auatubu and the House of Teabike, until in 1892 HMS Royalist (1883) arrived, with Captain Edward Davis proclaiming that the island was now a British Protectorate. This saved Auatubu from massacre; the day before, they had been badly defeated by Teabike. A very old lady, plaiting a sleeping mat twenty-five years later, described the situation:

"In those days death was on the right hand and on the left. If we wandered north, we were killed or raped. If we wandered south, we were killed or raped. If we returned alive from walking abroad, our husbands themselves killed us, for they said that we had gone forth seeking to be raped. That was indeed just, for a woman who disobeys her husband is a woman of no account, and it matters not how she dies. Yet how beautiful is life in our villages, now that there is no killing and war is no more... Behold my son and my grandson! These would have died with me that day at Nea if the warship had not arrived. And these"-she pointed out her great and great-great-grandchildren-"would never have been born. We live because the Government of Kuini Kabitoria brought peace to us, and here I sit plaiting this mat to be buried in because of the kindness of that woman, with all my generations around me to wrap me in it when I die."

The aftermath of land claims and counter-claims between Auatubu and Teabike nevertheless caused high tension for years afterwards.

Charles Richard Swayne, the first Resident Commissioner, decided to install the central headquarters of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands protectorate in Tarawa in 1895. Tarawa Post Office opened on 1 January 1911.

Sir Arthur Grimble was a cadet administrative officer based at Tarawa (1913–1919). He became Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony in 1926.

During World War II, Tarawa was occupied by the Japanese, and beginning on 20 November 1943 it was the scene of the bloody Battle of Tarawa. On that day U.S. Marines landed on Tarawa and fought Japanese Marines of the Special Naval Landing Forces occupying entrenched positions on the atoll. The Marines captured the island after 76 hours of intense fighting that killed 6,000 people in total.

The fierce fighting was the subject of a documentary film produced by the Combat Photographers of the Second Marine Division entitled With the Marines at Tarawa. It was released in March 1944 at the insistence of President Roosevelt. It became the first time many Americans viewed American servicemen dead on film.. The US built bases on the Island.

The Kiribati Government began a road restoration project funded in part by the World Bank in 2014 to re-surface the main road from Betio in the west to Bonriki in the east, upgrading the main road that transits Tarawa from a dirt road. As of 2018, all that remained to be completed of this project was the sealing of the Japanese Causeway, connecting Bairiki and Betio, done in 2019.

Literature and journal

 * A Pattern of Islands by Sir Arthur Grimble, John Murray & Co, London, 1952; republished 2011 by Eland, London, ISBN 978-1-906011-45-1
 * Return to the Islands by Sir Arthur Grimble, John Murray & Co, London, 1957
 * The 2004 book The Sex Lives of Cannibals by J. Maarten Troost is a lighthearted account of the author's two years living on Tarawa.
 * The Precedence of Tarawa Atoll, by H.E. Maude and Edwin Doran Jr, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Jun. 1966), pp. 269–289.
 * Kiribati. Cronache illustrate da una terra (s)perduta is an illustrated book of Alice Piciocchi (illustrator: Andrea Angeli). March 2016. 24 Ore Cultura, Milan, also in French translation Chronique illustrée d’un archipel perdu, éditions du Rouergue, 2018.
 * "Tarawa" by war correspondent Robert Sherrod was published in 1944 and chronicles the WWII battle

In popular culture

 * Tarawa is the site of the 1944 Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph by Frank Filan, depicting a destroyed bunker.
 * Leon Cooper, a US Navy Landing Craft Operator who took part in the WWII battle, returned to the island in 2008 to investigate reports the beach he landed on was littered with garbage. His journey was chronicled in the documentary "Return to Tarawa: The Leon Cooper Story", narrated by Ed Harris.
 * "Tarawa Atoll Sanglant" is a Belgian comic written by Jean-Michel Charlier and Victor Hubinon in 1950. (ISBN 2-8001-2063-0)
 * Leon Uris' 1953 fictional Battle Cry extensively depicts the 1943 battle. (Uris was a Marine on Guadalcanal.)
 * Tarawa Atoll is featured as the penultimate battle of EA Games Medal of Honor, Pacific Assault (2004).
 * A 1956 British drama film Pacific Destiny based on the book A Pattern of Islands was made in 1956.
 * The Far Reaches, a 2007 historical novel by Homer Hickam, describes the Battle of Tarawa. (ISBN 0-312-334753)
 * In the novel Snow Falling on Cedars, Ishmael Chambers is a World War II US Marine Corps veteran who lost an arm fighting the Japanese at the Battle of Tarawa while watching his friends die. He revisits his part in the battle in a flashback.
 * The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific is a 2004 travelogue by author J. Maarten Troost describing the two years he and his girlfriend spent living on the Tarawa atoll in the Pacific island nation of Kiribati.

Memorial

 * USS Tarawa was the name of the first LHA-class amphibious assault ship.

title: Tarawa


text:
Variable-length intake manifold

In internal combustion engines, a variable-length intake manifold (VLIM),variable intake manifold (VIM), or variable intake system (VIS) is an automobile internal combustion engine manifold technology. As the name implies, VLIM/VIM/VIS can vary the length of the intake tract in order to optimise power and torque across the range of engine speed operation, as well as to help provide better fuel efficiency. This effect is often achieved by having two separate intake ports, each controlled by a valve, that open two different manifolds – one with a short path that operates at full engine load, and another with a significantly longer path that operates at lower load. The first patent issued for a variable length intake manifold was published in 1958, US Patent US2835235 by Daimler Benz AG.

There are two main effects of variable intake geometry:
 * Swirl: Variable geometry can create a beneficial air swirl pattern, or turbulence in the combustion chamber. The swirling helps distribute the fuel and form a homogeneous air-fuel mixture. This aids the initiation of the combustion process, helps minimise engine knocking, and helps facilitate complete combustion.  At low revolutions per minute (rpm), the speed of the airflow is increased by directing the air through a longer path with limited capacity (i.e., cross-sectional area) and this assists in improving low engine speed torque.  At high rpm, the shorter and larger path opens when the load increases, so that a greater amount of air with least resistance can enter the chamber. This helps maximise 'top-end' power.  In double overhead camshaft (DOHC) designs, the air paths may sometimes be connected to separate intake valves so the shorter path can be excluded by de-activating the intake valve itself.
 * Pressurisation: A tuned intake path can have a light pressurising effect similar to a low-pressure supercharger due to Helmholtz resonance. However, this effect occurs only over a narrow engine speed band.  A variable intake can create two or more pressurized "hot spots", increasing engine output.  When the intake air speed is higher, the dynamic pressure pushing the air (and/or mixture) inside the engine is increased.  The dynamic pressure is proportional to the square of the inlet air speed, so by making the passage narrower or longer the speed/dynamic pressure is increased.

Applications
Many automobile manufacturers use similar technology with different names. Another common term for this technology is variable resonance induction system (VRIS).

 * Acura — Variable Volume Induction 3.0-litre V6 C30A (1991-2005) and 3.2-litre V6 C32B (1997-2005); 3.2 L V6 J32A3 (2004-2008); 2.0-litre I4 R20A (2013-2015) petrol engines
 * Audi — 2.8-litre V6 petrol engine (1991–98); 3.0-litre V6 (2002-2005); 3.6 and 4.2-litre V8 engines, 1987–present
 * Alfa Romeo — Twin Spark 16v (1.8 and 2.0-litre) and JTS engines
 * BMW — DISA (DIfferenzierte SaugAnlage – "Differential Air Intake"), two Port: M42, three Port: N52; DIVA (variable length runners): M54 etc. BMW's DIVA (Differentiated Variable Air Intake) used on the N62 V8 engine, is the world's first continuously variable length intake manifold.
 * Citroën — XM 3,0 V6.24 (200 hp) used during 1991 to 1997, ZX Coupe 2.0 16v XU10J4 engine.
 * Daewoo — Variable Geometry Induction System (VGIS) Lanos
 * Dodge / Chrysler — 3.5 L V6 EGE, (1993-1997) used in Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde and LHS; 2.0 A588 - ECH (2001–2005) used in the 2001-2005 model year Dodge Neon R/T; 6.4 L V8 2011-2014 Dodge Charger and Challenger, Chrysler 300, Jeep Grand Cherokee (SRT8 versions)
 * Ferrari — 360 Modena, 550 Maranello, LaFerrari
 * Fiat – Controlled High Turbulence (1989–92, Fiat Croma CHT), StarJet engine, dubbed Port Deactivation (PDA), Variable Intake System on the 131HP 1.8 16V and on the 155 HP 2.0 20V Pratola Serra engine.
 * Ford — Dual-Stage Intake (DSI), on their Duratec 2.5 and 3.0-litre V6s, and it was also found on the Yamaha V6 in the Taurus SHO. The Ford Modular V8 engines and the V6 Cologne use either the Intake Manifold Runner Control (IMRC) for four-valve engines, or the Charge Motion Control Valve (CMCV) for three-valve engines. The SVT edition (in North America) and ST170 edition (in Europe) of the Ford Focus added IMRC to the Ford Zetec engine. A system called Split Port Induction (SPI) was used on the 2.0L CVH I4 of the 1997-2002 Escort and 2000-2004 Focus, and the 3.8L Essex V6 of the 1996-2003 Windstar and 2001-2004 Mustang.
 * General Motors — 3.9-litre LZ8/LZ9 V6, 3.2-litre LA3 V6, LT5 5.7-litre
 * GM Korea — DOHC versions of E-TEC II engines
 * Holden — Alloytec
 * Honda — Integra, Legend, NSX, Prelude, Civic, Accord Hybrid, Ridgeline, Honda Civic (ninth generation)
 * Hyundai — XG V6
 * Isuzu — Rodeo used in the second generation V6, 3.2-litre (6VD1) Rodeos, and third generation Gemini 1.6-litre 16v (4XE1) engines
 * Jaguar — AJ-V6
 * Kia — Carnival, Sedona
 * Land Rover — Variable Geometry Induction: Freelander V6 (2001-2006)
 * Lancia — VIS
 * Mazda — Variable Inertia Charging System (VICS) is used on the Mazda FE-DOHC engine and Mazda B engine family of inline-four engines, and Variable Resonance Induction System (VRIS) in the Mazda K engine family of V6 engines. An updated version of this technology is employed on Mazda's new Z and L engines, which is also used by Ford as the Duratec.
 * Mercedes-Benz — V6 M112, V6 M272, V8 AMG M156
 * MG — ZT 190, 180, 160 (2001-2005), ZS 180 (2001-2005)
 * Mitsubishi — Mitsubishi Variable Induction Management (MVIM) 1991-1999 3000GT NA DOHC, 2003-2005 Eclipse
 * Nissan — inline-four engines, V6 engines, V8 engines
 * Opel — TWINPORT – modern versions of Ecotec Family 1 and Ecotec Family 0 inline-four engines and inline-three engines; a similar technology is used in 3.2-litre 54° V6 engine.
 * Peugeot — 2.2-litre inline-four engine, 3.0-litre V6, 2.0 16v XU10J4 engine (non /z version)
 * Porsche — 928 "flappy", VarioRam, 964, 993, 996, Boxster
 * Proton — Campro CPS and VIM, Proton Gen-2 CPS and Proton Waja CPS; Proton Campro IAFM - 2008 Proton Saga 1.3
 * Renault — Clio 2.0 RS
 * Roewe — Variable Geometry Induction: Roewe 750 2.5 (2006–present).
 * Rover — Variable Geometry Induction: Rover 825 (1996-1999), Rover 75 V6 (1998-2005)
 * Subaru – Subaru Legacy Japan only using EJ204 (version D) 2.0 Litre, Naturally aspirated engine
 * Suzuki – VIS
 * Toyota — Toyota Variable Induction System (T-VIS), used in the early versions of the 1G-GEU, 3S-GTE, 3S-GE, and 4A-GE families, and Acoustic Control Induction System - (ACIS) used in E, G, GR, GZ, JZ, M, S, MZ, UR, UZ, and VZ engine families.
 * Volkswagen — 1.6-litre inline-four engine, V6 engines, VR5 engines, VR6 engines, W8 engines, V8 engines
 * Volvo — V-VIS (Volvo Variable Induction System) Volvo B52 engine as found on the Volvo 850. Longer inlet ducts used between 1,500 and 4,100 rpm at 80% load or higher.

title: Variable-length intake manifold


text:
Talk:Cnidaria

Number of cell layers?
The second paragraph says there are two cell layers, surrounding a non-cellular jelly. However, the table in the "Distinguishing features" section says there are three layers. Which is correct? It can't be both. Pstemari (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Number of cell layers requires clarification. It makes sense to me if the author is referring to cell layers during very early development, but it doesn't refer to that anywhere. What am I missing?

 * Cnidarians have two main, continuous layers (the epidermis of both the interior and exterior of the body). The jelly-like layer in between is acellular. However, they also have organs in that jelly-like layer (muscle and nerve fibers), so some scholars describe them as triploblastic (three-layered). This is explained in the article. (The jelly also contains amoeboid cells that have both immune and regenerative function.) IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cloning?
The article mentions that cnids can regrow after fragmentation. Would each new cnid be considered a clone of the original cnid? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Genetically, yes. But in the context of reproduction, cloning is a normal activity rather recovery after a disaster. --Philcha (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * So they are technically clones in that each is genetically identical to the original, but they aren't really considered clones? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it's more a peculiarity of the English language - the noun "clones" refers to individuals that are genetically identical (and probably implies "produced asexually", as opposed to "identical twins"), and therefore includes regenerated fragments; but "cloning" (gerund of the verb), when used of a natural rather than lab process, refers to a normal activity rather recovery after an extermally-inflicted disaster. --Philcha (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reagan link
The Reagan era link leads to a disambiguation that discusses only the surname Reagan. Does an appropriate article for the biological era exist, or is this entire sentence vandalism?

Classification in the taxobox and the body of the test
I've played around with trying to clarify the classification of subphyla and classes. I also added links to the source for the classification I used in the taxobox. The problem, of course, is that there are alternative classification schemes. As I am not a worker in the field, I have no feel for what best represents the current state of knowledge. I do feel however, that whatever classification scheme is used in the taxobox should be tied to a source. So, any dissenters to what I've done? -- Donald Albury 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
some one is vandalising the page repeatedly!!Silverpal 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Headline text
they allhave stinging cells. more complex than sponges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.221.157 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Manus
The basic body shape of a cnidarian consists of a sac containing a gastrovascular cavity with a single opening that functions as both mouth and anus known as a manus.

I've looked for this term elsewhere and have found no reference to it. It is not used in any invertebrate zoology texts that I've found. Vandalism? --JimmyButler (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Corrected ... wow this page is heavily vandalized with very immature edits. Guess it's those school kids doing projects in biology classes.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Singular vs. plural
Philcha, this sentence from the lead is grammatically incorrect: "Their distinguishing feature is cnidocytes...".

"Cnidocytes" is a plural word, hence the statement should read "Their distinguishing features are cnidocytes...". However the syntax here implies that cnidocytes are not the only distinguishing feature(s). That's why I changed the text to "They are characterized by cnidocytes..." with the edit summary "Awkward singular/plural conflict changed". Axl ¤  [Talk]  06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * We may have a dialect difference here. "Their distinguishing features are ..." leads me to expect something else as well as cnidocytes, but AFAIK cnidarians have no other features that are unique to them and possessed by all of them. As I said in the edit comment, "distinguishing feature" is plain language for "synapomorphy". --Philcha (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)--Philcha (talk)
 * You have completely missed my point. I agree with your second sentence (as I commented above), which is why that is not what I recommended. As I said, both in my edit summary and my comment above, the problem lies with the mixed use of singular and plural forms in the sentence. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Re "the mixed use of singular and plural forms in the sentence", that could be resolved by "... is the possession of cnidocytes, ...", but I think the cure would be no better than the disease, because of the extra verbiage. --Philcha (talk)
 * Indeed I was considering "... the presence of cnidocytes...". ;-) While the phrase is longer, it is grammatically correct. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on the GA for Cnidaria. This article generated some interest for me as well as my students a year ago in that a statement concerning Manus (mouth anus system) had languished there for some time. The need to correct this rather humorous factoid is what broke my self imposed Wiki-bann. It is such a delight to see the article tranformed so dramatically. Especially since the topic is probably high volume for high school students doing research on animal phyla. The before and after snap shot on this one speaks volumes about the work invested. Thank you. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "An idiom is a phrase where the words together have a meaning that is different from the dictionary definitions of the individual words, which can make idioms hard for ESL students and learners to understand." ummm .... Conversely? But your right .... in the scheme of the transformation that took place here it is a non-issue! Cheers--JimmyButler (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of species
I just undid a change in number of species in lead from 9,000 to 11,000:
 * Not as shown in main text - see WP:LEAD.
 * No source given - see WP:V and WP:CITE.
 * Species counts are tricky. Those given in the article are based on formally-recognised species ("described" in the jargon) by class (jellyfish, anemones, etc.) To replace the count in the lead you'd have to find a source that gave other counts by class - one source, as summing counts of different classes by different authors would be like adding apples and oranges. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology?
I'm inserting a request on the talk pages for Ctenophore and Cnidaria to add an Etymology section. The "silent c" is uncommon enough in language that I'd be very interested to know where it comes from.174.46.172.13 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I've added a link at the bottom of the page to the Wiktionary entry for Cnidaria, which indicates that it is derived from the Ancient Greek word for 'nettle'. -- Donald Albury 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 * See Cnidaria. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

question on redirect
According to the Taxonomicon Cnideria is a phylum with Anthozoa and Medusazoa as subphyla. So why is Medusazoa redirected to Cnideria. Perhaps discussion particular to medusazoans should be removed and included in a separate article for that group. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that Medusozoa should have its own article rather than being redirected to Cnidaria. However material shoudl not be removed from Cnidaria, as this article is meant to be an overview of the whole phylum. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Over 9000
Is this actually correct or just "for deh lolz"? --68.158.0.237 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It's for real, from a good source that counts only confirmed species rather than estimates - see details at Cnidaria. --Philcha (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Primitive
"cnidarians, although considered more "primitive" than bilaterians, have a wider range of genes, and that bilaterians have introduced few new genes and that most have lost several—this reduction is most striking among the ecdysozoan group of protostomes, which includes arthropods and nematodes.[44] In fact cnidarians, and especially anthozoans (sea anemones and corals), retain some genes that are present in bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians."

Use of "although" seems to imply that what follows contradicts the idea of cnidarians being more primitive than bilaterians. But anything found in "bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians" is most certainly a primitive trait (=found in common ancestor though perhaps lost in some descendants) for animals. I understand the intent here -- that some people think of "primitive" as "more simple/crude" -- but I think this rather adds confusion than clarifies, by somewhat confusing the biological definition of primitive (primitive characters = those found in common ancestor, as opposed to derived characters) with the colloquial meaning. I think simply removing the clause "although considered more 'primitive' than bilaterians" would be best. Vultur (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 * IIRC the pattern in which primitive organism have more wider range of genes than their derived descendants is quite common, and this point should therefore be retained. How about e.g. "cnidarians are considered more primitive than bilaterians but have a wider range of genes, while bilaterians have introduced few new genes and most have lost several—this reduction is most striking among the ecdysozoan group of protostomes, which includes arthropods and nematodes.[44] In fact cnidarians, and especially anthozoans (sea anemones and corals), retain some genes that are present in bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians." --Philcha (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The statement that "bilaterians have introduced few new genes" seems highly misleading. Genes (in the sense of protein-coding sequences) don't come from nowhere (at least this would be exceptionally rare), so any modern gene derives from some ancestral gene -- but bilaterians have millions of genes that are not found in other organisms.  Maybe a less misleading statement would be that bilaterians have lost more ancestral genes than cnidarians have? Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 * "In fact cnidarians, and especially anthozoans (sea anemones and corals), retain some genes that are present in bacteria, protists, plants and fungi but not in bilaterians" is based on ref [45] and looks very solid.
 * The first sentence, "cnidarians are considered more primitive than bilaterians but have a wider range of genes, while bilaterians have introduced few new genes and most have lost several ..." is based on ref [44], but that surveyed one family genes. I'll check this outside in more detail today, when I'll now at home and can use my main computer. --Philcha (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that the sentence based on ref 45 is okay, the issue is with the other one. It's really a question of what counts as a "new gene".  Since no gene remains fully invariant over time, and every gene derives from some ancestor, no gene is ever either purely new or purely old, so there is bound to be some arbitrariness about this. With the current wording, I don't think many readers will understand the sentence correctly.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A slightly fascinated, but not unrelated aside. The issue of it being not uncommon for earlier lifeforms to have a wider range of genes than their descendants appears to be consistent with Stephen Jay Gould's argument pertaining to reduction in disparity as measured by both the lack of new "body plans" over time and the lack of any major modifications of old ones.
 * On the evolution of new gene variants, I wouldn't have thought this was particularly controversial. It would come down to how a new gene is defined. I guess that this varies in the literature, with some focusing more on the gene structure, and some more on the function. And I guess it's easier to see this in literature on organisms where it's easiest to study phylogenetic change. Such as those with short lifespans and rapid replication, like micro-organisms and good old Drosophila melanogaster. Just a loose hypothesis on my part for comment if you see fit (doesn't matter if you don't, if I'm around long enough, I'll check it out myself, having created a question for myself). Wotnow (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph in lede
I tend to write long, multi-clause sentences myself, but I found the following sentence hard to follow, and had to read it several times to be sure I understood it:

"Cnidarians are classified into four main groups: sessile Anthozoa (sea anemones (not sessile but only move 3-4 inches an hour), corals, and sea pens); swimming Scyphozoa (jellyfish); Cubozoa (box jellies); and Hydrozoa, a diverse group that includes all the freshwater cnidarians as well as many marine forms, and has both sessile members such as Hydra and colonial swimmers such as the Portuguese Man o' War."

Basically, it looks like two of the groups are identified as "sessile" and "swimming", and then the scheme shifts to using orders. There are too many asides, as well. There is a shorter and simpler version of this sentence in the "Classification" section. Neither the sentence in the lede nor the one in the "Classification" section agrees with the classification in the taxobox. The lede should be a summary of the article. I'm not sure that the classification of members of Cnidaria needs to be included. A simple list of some easily recognizable members (i.e. anemones, corals, sea pens, and jellyfish) should be sufficient for the lede. -- Donald Albury 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi, Donald Albury. That para is about classification, not locomotion. I've edited to "the almost wholly sessile Anthozoa (sea anemones, corals, sea pens); swimming Scyphozoa (jellyfish); Cubozoa (box jellies); and Hydrozoa, a diverse group that includes all the freshwater cnidarians as well as many marine forms, and has both sessile members such as Hydra and colonial swimmers such as the Portuguese Man o' War." --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The taxobox has one view of the taxonomy. The Taxonomicon gives no citations, authors, etc., so by WP:V it's not a 1st-class source. It is more consistent with the cladogram at Cnidaria. But cladistics, and especially molecular phylogeny is turning up traditional taxonomy and this may make taxoboxes obsolete. --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt taxoboxes are going away. Competing classifications are found in many articles about life forms, and we don't have a consistent way of presenting them, but infoboxes of all kinds seem to be firmly imbedded in WP culture. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"more complex" sentence
"Cnidarians form an animal phylum that more complex than sponges, about as complex as ctenophores (comb jellies), and less complex than bilaterians"

An unclear sentence. It's written to say that the phylum is more complex, but appears to mean that the animals of the phylum are individually more complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.94.176 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Polymorphism
After reading that section that was created again, polymorphism isn't specifically about zooid differentiation, which confused the topic by suggesting that colonial zooids were the same as medusa and polyp forms in all cnidarians. I reworked it a bit to be more clear. Esox id talk•contribs 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong evolutionary tree and a lack of Myxozoa
Lately Myxozoa has been shown to be a Cnidarian (as can be seen on the Myxozoa page on Wikipedia), yet that is not discussed in the evolutionary history. Also - they are more likely closer to Medusozoa than Anthozoa, so they should be deep within the Cnidarian tree and not next to Bilateria at all (the whole bilaterian debacle was because of fish fragments in the Myxozoa DNA). I don't know how to edit Wikipedia well, so I think someone should change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erez87 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cnidaria. 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/20070929102538/http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=11551 to http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=11551

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Placozoa
On this cladogram the placozoa are placed as siblings to the bilateria. But other articles — Planulozoa, ParaHoxozoa, Diploblast — place placozoa as cousins to both Cnidaria and Bilateria. Can this discrepancy be explained in the article (or is one version less accepted)? — Henry chianski (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The refs in this article are really dated and everything needs to be updated. Cnidaria is sister to placozoa or bilateria.Jmv2009 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Acalephae listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acalephae. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Too technical
The entire article from the second sentence is so technical and loaded with specialist jargon with no explanation, that it conveys almost nothing to me, a scientifically literate person. It needs a major revamping, preferably by someone with not so much expertise that they can't explain things in plainer language. Zaslav (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an article about Cnidaria written in simple English.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Status of mesoglea
I have moved the following question about the mesoglea (which was added to the article by an IP) to here: "* (attn: how can this be termed "non-living" when it contains nerve bundles, muscles and amoeba that function as an immune system)?)" - Donald Albury 11:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Plankton sizes
Note to @Spaully: actually there are large planktonic organisms. Your edit is correct, because cnidarians are not limited to eating small plankton, but your comment contains a misconception. Wikipedia's own plankton article says, "Though many planktonic species are microscopic in size, plankton includes organisms over a wide range of sizes, including large organisms such as jellyfish." IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes the revert did lead me to read about larger plankton species and realise my error. Apt name by the way! |→ Spaully ~talk~ 21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Myxozoans are not unicellular
@Apokryltaros edited the page to state that myxozoans are unicellular. They are not. See, e. g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282249669_Myxozoa. They have few cells, but more than one. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, they are not polyps, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course. Note at least one paper places them in Bilateria! https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/12/2733/1071669
 * A couple of papers I found imply that the adult myxozoan represents a highly modified medusa. I can find no source claiming they are polyps. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Phylum petalonamae?
How is phylum Cnidaria set to phylum petalonamae? An extinct clade? 76.144.49.221 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cnidaria


text:
Green beret

The green beret was the official headdress of the British Commandos, a special-forces unit active during World War II. It is still worn by members of the Royal Marines after passing the Commando Course, and personnel from other units of the Royal Navy, Army and RAF who serve within 3 Commando Brigade and who have passed the All Arms Commando Course.

There are certain other military organizations that also wear the green beret because they have regimental or unit histories that have a connection with the British Commandos. These include the Australian, French and Dutch commandos. It is the norm in the armed forces of the Commonwealth Nations, where most regiments wear headdresses and cap badges which reflect regimental history and traditions.

Origins
Initially, those who joined the British Commandos kept their parent regimental headdress and cap badges. In 1941, No. 1 Commando had no fewer than 79 different cap badges and many different forms of headdress. "Thus a motley collection of caps, Tam o' Shanters, bonnets, forage caps, caps 'fore and aft', berets, peaked KD caps, etc., appeared on the Commando parades," says Captain Oakley, "the forest being a veritable RSM's nightmare!"

No. 2 Commando and No. 9 Commando faced with the same problem had adopted the Tam o' Shanter, but, as a traditional Scottish headdress, this was not considered suitable for what was a British unit. After some discussion it was agreed that if No. 1 Commando was to adopt a uniformed headdress then the beret, which had been worn by the Tank Regiment since the First World War (and had recently been adopted by the Parachute Regiment), would meet the requirements: it had no British regional affinity, it was difficult to wear improperly, and it could be easily stowed away without damage (when for example tin hats were in use).

Having decided on the headdress, the next question to be resolved was the colour. The shoulder insignia of No. 1 Commando had been designed by the Richmond Herald at the College of Arms. It incorporated three colours in its design of a green salamander going through fire: red, yellow and green. Green was chosen as the most suitable. A Scottish firm of tam-o-shanter makers in Irvine (Ayrshire) was chosen to design and manufacture the beret.

Once the design was agreed, Brigadier Robert Laycock was approached by No. 1 Commando to seek his permission to wear it. He had been pondering on what the commandos should use for their headdress, and welcomed the green beret as a chance to introduce it as standard for all commandos formations, with No. 1 Commando being the first to don them.

The proposal that the commandos should start wearing green beret as their official headdress was submitted to the Chief of Combined Operations and forwarded by Lord Mountbatten to the Under-Secretary of State for War. Approval was granted and in October 1942 the first green berets were issued to the Royal Marines.

Australian commandos
Australian Commando berets are known as being "Sherwood Green" in colour. The corps badge on the beret is a black background and a gold combat dagger with the motto "Foras Admonitio" meaning "Without Warning" across the dagger. The green beret is only awarded to a soldier upon becoming qualified as a Commando in either of the below regiments.
 * 1st Commando Regiment
 * 2nd Commando Regiment. Formerly 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, a special forces unit of the Australian Army

Belgian paracommandos
Consisting of two battalions within the light brigade, only the 2nd Commando Battalion inherited the green beret along with other traditions from the 4th Troop of No.10 Commando. These paracommandos are the only "green berets" that are no longer a special operations force, but are considered to be elite. However, the Belgian special forces usually only recruits from paracommandos.

Dutch commandos
The Special Forces of the Netherlands consist mainly of the KCT (Korps Commando Troepen). Their motto is "Nunc aut Nunquam" which is Latin for "Now or Never". The roots of the KCT go back to World War II. Under the name No. 2 (Dutch) Troop, the first Dutch commandos were trained in Achnacarry, Scotland, as part of No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando. The unit was formed on March 22, 1942, the birthday of the present KCT.

Members of the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps also receive upon completion of the Commando Course a green beret, but with the gold anchor on a red background.

Finnish Coastal Jaegers

The Finnish Coastal Jaegers primary role is to conduct counterattacks against enemy landings in the Finnish archipelago, an environment known for small islands and skerries. Jaegers can function independently or with the support of artillery units, including light or heavy mortars. A number of Coastal Jaeger troops receive training for unconventional warfare and reconnaissance behind enemy lines. The right to wear the green beret must be earned & can be lost as a punishment.

French Navy Commandos

The Commandos Marine, nicknamed bérets verts ("green berets"), are the special operations forces unit of the French Navy. As the unit traces its origins back to the United Kingdom, with the first generation being made up of Free French volunteers trained alongside their British peers during the Second World War, the Commandos Marine wear the same green berets as the British Commandos, pulled to the right (a unique case in the French Armed Forces where berets are pulled to the left).

French Foreign Legion
The French Foreign Legion regiments also notably wear a green beret. Although this tradition, unlike the former, is not linked to the UK.

Italian Navy's Special Forces

The COMSUBIN are the elite special operations unit of the Italian Navy. The Royal Italian Navy's Naval Assault Divisions is considered to be the precursor of modern Naval Special Forces. They are called baschi verdi (green berets).

Lithuanian military
Green berets are worn by soldiers of most of the Lithuanian Armed Forces with exception of the Military Police, Navy, Air Force, the Volunteer Forces, SOF and the Engineer Battalion. In 1991 the need arose to distinguish between Iron Wolf brigade and other forces wearing black berets so their commander has chosen the green beret as a mark of special forces although later it became regular mechanized infantry.

Mexican Army Special Forces Corps

The Mexican Army Special Forces nicknamed the COIFE, formerly the GAFE (Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales), are a special operations unit of the Mexican Army. The COIFE adapted the green beret as their signature headgear, known as the boina verde (Spanish for green beret). The COIFE have received training from Israeli and American special forces. The COIFE have also played a key role against Mexican drug cartels during the on-going Mexican drug war. They are the Mexican Army's equivalent to the U.S. Army Special Forces.

Portuguese Paratroopers
The Portuguese Paratroopers (Portuguese: Tropas Paraquedistas) are an elite infantry assault force, representing the bulk of the airborne forces of Portugal. They were created in 1955 as part of the Portuguese Air Force, being transferred to the Portuguese Army in 1993. Presently, most of the Paratroopers are part of the Portuguese Rapid Reaction Brigade which also includes the Commandos and the Special Operations forces.

In 1955, the Paratroopers were the first unit of the Portuguese Armed Forces to adopt a beret. Instead of the red beret, traditionally worn by most of the parachute units of the other Western countries, the then Portuguese minister of Defense Santos Costa opted for a green beret, allegedly because green was the color of the ink of the pen he used to sign his decrees. Because of that, the Portuguese Paratroopers are nicknamed Boinas Verdes ("Green Berets").

Portuguese Special Operations (Army Rangers)
The unit members wear a moss/dry green beret and are the heir of the Special Hunters: the beret badge includes a hunting horn—a symbol of the Special Hunters; and the unit is known as Rangers because the first instructors of the Special Hunters completed the Ranger Course and adapted the characteristics of that training to the Special Operations Course. This special forces unit has operated in Bosnia and Herzegovina, East-Timor, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Royal Marine Commandos
In the United Kingdom all Royal Marines who have passed the Commando Course wear the green beret. Personnel from the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force volunteering for service with 3 Commando Brigade undertake the All Arms Commando Course, completion of which allows individuals to wear the headdress. Commando-qualified Royal Marines always wear the green beret, with the Globe and Laurel cap badge and commando-qualified personnel from other armed services wear the beret, with their own cap badge, when serving with commando units unless otherwise authorised. The Special Boat Service (SBS) also wear the green Commando beret but with their own cap badge consisting of a sword with two blue waved lines with the words "by strength and guile"

The Commando Badge of a Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife on a triangular patch/badge is worn on the sleeve in perpetuity by all those who have passed the course.

Russia
There are several organizations in Russia using Green berets.

 * Light green - used first by Soviet Border Troops of the KGB, and then by Russian Border Troops of the FSB. Is worn with a green Telnyashka. Beret has a distinct emerald colour.
 * Green - used by Federal Bailiffs Service since 2011. The colour is bright green.
 * Dark green - used in different reconnaissance troops of different branches of military and security. In particular used by reconnaissance troops of Rosgvadiya.

Spanish Special Operations
Army (Special Operations Command), Navy (Unidad de Operaciones Especiales) and Air Force of Spain have their own special operations units, all wearing green berets with the unit badges.

Personnel attached to the MCOE (Mando Conjunto de Operaciones Especiales) (Joint Special Operations Command) wear a green beret with the badge of the joint three military branches.

United States Army Special Forces
In the U.S. armed forces, the green beret may be worn only by soldiers awarded the Special Forces Tab, signifying they have been qualified as Special Forces (SF) soldiers. The Special Forces beret is officially designated "beret, man's, wool, rifle green, army shade 297".

U.S. Special Forces wear the green beret as a distinction of excellence and uniqueness within the Army.

The 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) had many OSS World War II veterans in their ranks when it was formed in 1952. They began to unofficially wear a berets of varying colour while training. The color green became favored because it was reminiscent of the World War II British Commando-type beret. The 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) deployed to Bad Tölz, Germany in September 1953. The remaining cadre at Fort Bragg formed the 77th Special Forces Group. Members of the 77th SFG began searching through their collections of berets and settled on the Rifle Green colour of the British Rifle Regiments (as opposed to the Lovat Green of the Commandos) from Captain Mike de la Pena's collection. Captain Frank Dallas had the new beret designed and produced in small numbers for the members of the Special Forces.

Their new headdress was first worn at a retirement parade at Fort Bragg on 12 June 1955 for Major General Joseph P. Cleland, the now-former commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps. Onlookers thought that the commandos were a foreign delegation from NATO.

In 1956 General Paul D. Adams, the post commander at Fort Bragg, banned its wear, even though it was worn surreptitiously when deployed overseas. This was reversed on 25 September 1961 by Department of the Army Message 578636, which designated the green beret as the exclusive headdress of the Army Special Forces.

When visiting the Special Forces at Fort Bragg on 12 October 1961, President John F. Kennedy asked Brigadier General William P. Yarborough to make sure that the men under his command wore green berets for the visit. Later that day, Kennedy sent a memorandum which included the line: "I am sure that the green beret will be a mark of distinction in the trying times ahead". By America's entry into the Vietnam War, the green beret had become a symbol of excellence throughout the US Army. On April 11, 1962, in a White House memorandum to the United States Army, President Kennedy reiterated his view: "The green beret is a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom". To no avail, both Yarborough and Edson Raff had previously petitioned the Pentagon to allow wearing of the green beret. The President, however, did not fail them.

In addition to being the headdress of the United States Army Special Forces, "Green Berets" is also a well known nickname of the organization.

Of historical note, an olive drab green beret was worn by arctic–qualified soldiers of the 172nd Infantry Brigade stationed in Alaska from 1973 to 1979 when the Department of the Army's morale-enhancing order was in force and various colored berets began to be worn by numerous units and branches of the US Army.

title: Green beret


text:
Talk:List of Formula One World Champions

Title
Shouldn't this article be titled List of Formula One champions (lower case "c" in champions) in accordance with the protocol? The article exists but it's just a redirect to the one with the capital "C." I'll change it if no one protests. — Dan | Talk 20:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this article ought to be called List of Formula One World Champions, because the championships on this list are the Formula One World Drivers Championship (WDC) and the Formula One World Constructors Championship (WCC). Aecis 17:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That sounds fair; at least it's more proper than the current title. I'll move it now. — Dan | Talk 07:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Order
I notice that the order of this list has suddenly been reversed from ascending to descending by year. What's the policy on list order? I think ascending makes more sense, personally. — Dan | Talk 22:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy
I think that the last three lists are largely redundant. If there's no opposition, I'll integrate them into the other lists. — Dan | Talk 19:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. SamH 13:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Definition
I'm not familiar with F1 racing, so i came to this page to find out what a "world drivers champion" meant. However, this page does not explain, nor link to any explanitory page. It would be greatly appreciated if someone who understood the criteria for recieving the award would put an explantion on this page, or somewhere, so i can understand the meaning of this award. I suspect it's based on the most points, but then, i'd need to know how points are assigned. In a way, i'm pointing out something that might not be obvious to the F1 fan. Cheers. Fudoreaper 09:13, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * Some explanation is given at Formula One and a detailed version is available at Formula One regulations, but I agree that this page should offer a link or an explanation of its own. I'll fix it accordingly. — Dan | Talk 12:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Year
Shouldn't the year link to the Formula One season of that year, not the general Wiki for that year? Lars T. 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Purpose?
I am not quite sure why such a page exists. The page is called "List of", yet is clearly not a list. It only seems to me to be a link to three other pages, the Drivers' and Constructors' Champions - which I can understand - and the points system page, which I cannot. I don't really see the point of a List of Lists page. The page is really irrelevant when those other pages are taken into account.

It's only purpose seems to be a page to lead people to those more relevant pages; which is strange because when you type in "List of Formula One..." into the search bar, the top three pages are the ones mentioned on this article. This article however, is difficult to find, and is not in the the search bar when you do the preceding, or even in the main Formula One article. I only noticed it in list-class F1 articles.

Considering this article is difficult to find, not very helpful, barely has any notable information, and none that can't be found elsewhere, the article itself cannot be found elsewhere, and no-one has dicussed it in almost six years - I will suggest this article is deleted. Bigdon128 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should probably be a disambiguation page for List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions. DH85868993 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I hadn't thought of that. That sounds like an ideal location for this page to me. Bigdon128 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now created a disambiguation page entitled Formula One World Champions. Seems much more convenient and useful than this page to me to have that. Appropriate because Formula One World Champions are not a separate entity to Drivers' and Constructors' Champs as this page implies - but should be linked to both Drivers'/Constructors' pages to help those who were actually looking for either/both of them. This page definately seems irrelevant now surely... Bigdon128 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
I suddenly remembered that I'd meant to change this page into a redirect months ago, but had forgotten - I'll get to it now! Bigdon128 (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)