Jump to content

Talk:Arthropod/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Old encyclopedia articles on arthropoda

I submit a list of Wikisource articles from old encyclopedias for your consideration for use in the "External links" section (N.B. This list has been augmented since the comment was initially put here.):

  • Texts on Wikisource:
    • John Young (1878). Baynes, T. S. (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (9th ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    • Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    • Edwin Ray Lankester (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    • Beach, Chandler B., ed. (1914). The New Student's Reference Work. Chicago: F. E. Compton and Co. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Your comment here.
    • Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1920). Encyclopedia Americana. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    • Reynolds, Francis J., ed. (1921). "Arthropoda". Collier's New Encyclopedia. New York: P. F. Collier & Son Company.

I initially just posted a link to the Collier's article in the "External links" section using a poster format:

Wikisource has the text of the 1921 Collier's Encyclopedia article Arthropoda.

This addition was reverted manually with the comment "Rv. Provides no worthwhile information - very brief and largely out of date." The 1921 Collier's article is indeed very brief, and out of date. The worthwhile information I think it provides is a snapshot of how this phylum used to be viewed.

I then posted a list of three articles, similar to the list above except it didn't include the NIE article. It was again reverted, this time using undo, with the same comment, "Rv. Provides no worthwhile information - very brief and largely out of date." The 1920 Americana article certainly is briefer than the Wikipedia article, but I would not describe it as very brief. In addition it has a very interesting section on "History and Present Classification" which is a topic the Wikipedia article does not touch on, and I think such an exposition would improve it. Though obviously the 1920 Americana information on "History and Present Classification" is too dated to stand alone, it might fit in as a part of a more complete historical section.

The articles do come with links to disclaimers which explain the information may be out of date. Rather obvious I think, but a reminder helps I suppose. Perhaps this addition would be appropriate with suitable comments on exactly what is out of date? I have shown how to append a comment on one article above. I would not attempt to do it myself. But just as they stand, I think a spectrum of old views of the phylum is useful for people who are interested in how science has developed. There are people interested in the history of science.

Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The information is indeed interesting to a student of the history of classification, but not to a general reader interested in arthropods. Without any explicit indication that the information is of purely historical interest, it would be misleading to include any of these links. Wikipedia policy on external links is only to include links to material that is reliable but which we couldn't reasonably include. Outdated encyclopaedias contain material that is either out of date or which could be included in the article itself (and indeed probably should be). For example, the Collier's text runs: "ARTHROPODA, a subdivision of the annulosa, or articulata, containing the classes belonging to that sub-kingdom which are of the highest organization. The body is very distinctly divided into rings or segments, sometimes, as in the myriapoda (centipedes and millepedes), mere repetitions of each other, but more frequently with some of them differentiated for special ends. In general, the head, thorax, and abdomen are distinct. Under the subdivision arthropoda are ranked in an ascending series the classes miriapoda, crustacea, arachnida, and insecta." Neither "Annulosa" nor "Articulata" are used today, so that clause is unusable. The concept of the "highest" level of organisation is teleological thinking, which is no longer accepted by mainstream evolutionary biology. That also applies to the "ascending series" of four classes (which was inaccurate even in 1920, trilobites having been known for many decades). The remaining information is a very bland description of myriapods as having repeating segmentation, and a general division into three tagmata. All of that is already in the article in considerably more detail than provided by the link. I have only tackled the shortest of the linked texts here, but I have examined them all, and similar arguments apply in all cases. The information they provide is either already included or, from a modern standpoint, wrong. They may be useful links if ever we had an article on "historical classification of arthropods" or something similar, but I do not see that they are useful supplements to this article. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion of the history of a concept seems a natural component of an article on it. Of course if it gets too involved, there should be a main article on the subject. And indeed this Wikipedia article has a section remarking on how some time ago (late 1950's as opposed to 1920 Americana's citation of 1893, 1894, 1898) classifier's thought it Arthropoda might be polyphyletic. It is apparently short-sighted and a perusal of the Americana article would probably lead to its improvement. The Americana article in addition notes who originally formulated the category. I don't feel I have the expertise to dovetail the Americana information into what is already there. Your remarks, suitably referenced, would be an interesting addition to the historical section. Even given this was done, I think the links to the other dated encyclopedia articles is useful just for the different points of view and treatments of the subject in different encyclopedias. So I think there is something to learn, especially from the Americana article, for editors of this article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case, we disagree. Information so out of date that it counts as misinformation has no place in an article, or being linked to. You state that the "Americana article in addition notes who originally formulated the category", which is true, but Encyclopedia Americana is plain wrong; as our article and almost all other sources state, the taxon was erected by Pierre André Latreille in 1829, and not Siebold (or "von Siebold & Stannius" as it should probably be), not that the Principle of Priority applies at such ranks (cf. ICZN). The whole source is utterly unreliable, partly because of its age, and partly because of human error. There is nothing for editors of this article to learn from the Encyclopedia Americana article. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well then someone should fix the Wikipedia articles on this then. The article on Pierre André Latreille gives him no credit for introducing the taxon (not specifically anyway), and the article on Karl Theodor Ernst von Siebold gives him credit for introducing it, with no sign of the 1920 Americana anywhere. But both these articles look like they need some work. Inventorying my ancient sources, I see neither the 1920 Americana article on Siebold nor the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Siebold make the claim. The 1905 NIE article on Siebold does, and notes he (not they) introduced it in the Stannius and Siebold book. Wouldn't a detail like that be an interesting contribution to this article, and give more credence to Latreille's claim, instead of a little Latreille 1829 in the infobox, and perhaps such a detail would be more appropriate here than in the Latreille article. I wouldn't try to write a history based on the ancient encyclopaedia articles, but at least they give an inkling of what was going on between 1829 and the late 1950's. Notice the article on Gravitation is not an article on the history of gravitation, but it does have a substantial section on the history gives at least an outline of significant contributions over time. Seeing how a concept develops contributes to someone's understanding. That is lacking in this article. Developing this taxon didn't all happen in 1829 and after the late 1950's, and all that is said about 1829 is the date. The historical aspect is something any mature article on an idea should deal with in a complete way. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, nomenclature is a little more complicated than that, and it turns out that Latreille's contribution may not be as great as you think. The date of 1829 is not when the concept arose, or when the taxon was first formalised; instead, it is when the name "Arthropoda" was first validly published. The concept had been around a long time (I suspect since at least Pliny the Elder), and was the taxon referred to by Linnaeus as "Insecta". A discussion of the history of the concept would be interesting, but would ideally be based on up-to-date sources. In this case, modern sources should be available, so I do not see that the antiquated encyclopaedias you have supplied would be terribly useful. You are right that our current article on Pierre André Latreille is poor. It has very few references and does not properly establish his significance. If you wanted to spend time improving that article, it would be much appreciated. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1911 Britannica (11th edition) gives Siebold and Stannius credit for coining the name "Arthropoda." The 9th edition (1888?) credits Latreille with formulating a category very close to the 1888 conception of Arthropoda, but says he gave it a different name. It is curious how that information got abandoned in 1911. These are both very long and involved articles, much like this Wikipedia article, all three of which I need to study more closely. None go back to Pliny the Elder and Linnaeus, but of course I would be willing to see them included as well. Another benefit from a historical examination would be a sequential look and what got included and excluded and would give more insight into the philosophy of the category and who contributed to its development and how they contributed. I do agree with you on the benefit of consulting modern sources, but, on natural history and many other topics, I think older sources can have much to contribute, even from an "ideal" point of view. All have to be used critically of course. I will consider working on Latreille, and also doing something with Arthropod on this issue if no one more expert takes up the gauntlet. If there is a specific work of Latreille that can be cited, that would help things; the "1829 Latreille" looks more and more cryptic to me. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, such information might be interesting, but is surely outside the scope of this article, and even if we wanted to discuss how concepts of authorship varied over time, we could not cite those old works without it being original research. You and I might be able to see how usage changed, but until someone else publishes an article on "The changing authorship of the phylum Arthropoda", for instance, we can't talk about it. We would need to cite an up-to-date source which states that early encyclopaedias credited the taxon to Siebold and Stannius or whoever. The sources you favour would then be valuable "Further reading", but cannot be admissible as references. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ligaments are not muscles.

In the third paragraph, as part of the "Internal Organs" section, is says this:

"Elastic ligaments, or small muscles, connect the heart to the body wall and expand sections that are not being squeezed by the heart muscle."

The way this is written, it seems as though the author is defining ligaments as another word for "small muscles." I do not know much about arthropods at all, but I do know that ligaments are not a muscle. So I can only assume the author meant to say "Either elastic ligaments, or small muscles connect the heart....."

Nihilianth (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, thanks. I edited to "either by elastic ligaments or by small muscles, in either case connecting the heart to the body wall." --Philcha (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Just thought it needed to be clarified. :) Nihilianth (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Diania cactiformis

There is a claim of a new possible ancestor to arthropods: Diania cactiformis. It would be interesting if someone with expertise in the field can take a look to the publication and add it if it has enough merit at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.67.227 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have an article, at Diania. The classification there places it outside the Arthropoda, but it may still be worthy of a mention. We might need to leave time to see what the scientific community makes of it first. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading phylogenetic tree?

The Classification section contains a phylogenetic tree which is, I think, somewhat misleading in the context of the paragraph beginning "The phylogeny of the major extant arthropod groups..." It uses a tree from Hassanin (2006), rather than one of the other five references given in the paragraph. There are two issues with this:

  1. Splitting Collembola from Insecta seems a particular feature of this source and is not supported generally.
  2. Hassanin explicitly says "Basal relationships between Pancrustacean lineages are not robust, and the question of Hexapod monophyly or polyphyly cannot be answered with the available mitochondrial sequences." So his tree should not be used to illustrate non-monophyly in Hexapoda.

One of the latest papers is: von Reumont, Bjoern M; et al. (2011), "Pancrustacean phylogeny in the light of new phylogenomic data: support for Remipedia as the possible sister group of Hexapoda", Molecular Biology and Evolution, doi:10.1093/molbev/msr270 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). This broadly supports the other sources in the Classification section, showing a monophyletic Hexapoda nested inside a paraphyletic "traditional Crustacea".

The other question is why the phylogeny material is in this section anyway, and not in the previous section. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


Is this issue associated with the massive space between Diversity and Segmentation? Charles Nelson 9:46 PM (PST), 31 December 2020 (UTC) nelsoc4@nv.ccsd.net

Digestion

Perhaps a paragraph on the structure of the gut and digestive glands would be helpful? Danger! High voltage! 01:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Single ancestor debate

Most of the comments above have at their roots the "single ancestor of all arthropods" debate. I'm no longer current in this field, but the article needs to give high prominence to the fact that the debate exists, which the article as it stands does not. (The casual reader would be forgiven for thinking that the orthodox view was that there was a common ancestor, and there was no debate.) My advice would be that there needs to be a 'flag' up front in the introduction that the term 'arthropod' might refer to a bunch of creatures that are not related, and that there is not, as far as I know, a definitive resolution.

Unfortunately I've changed disciplines and am no longer "current" in this field, so I must leave it to others to resolve this issue. --Wally Tharg (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything that I have read says that the debate is considered settled and polyphyly of arthropods is no longer taken seriously by experts in the field. "a unique origin of the euarthropods is well established" [1], "Monophyly of Arthropoda is emphatically supported from both morphological and molecular perspectives" [2], "monophyly of (Eu)arthropoda is well established" [3], "the Uniramia hypothesis is now generally considered obsolete" [4], "A decade or so ago there were even serious arguments over the single versus multiple origins of arthropodization, and therefore over the monophyly versus polyphyly of euarthropods (Fryer 1997). Molecular analyses have emphatically supported the monophyly of euarthropods and a unique origin of their cuticularized body and jointed appendages and in the past years, the attention has been focused more on the relationships between these four groups." [5]. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for a detailed and definitive answer to my query. Having looked at the article again I see that there is a sentence or two about it ... but it makes no reference to the articles that you cite above. I don't want to wade in and add these references for the reason stated above. Might I suggest that this is done? I'm sure that I wasn't the only person coming to this page with this query. Even better, how about a sub-section on the polyphyly debate, saying that it's now wrapped up using molecular evidence (I was last in the field 30 years ago ...), i.e. giving it more prominence. As it stands there's now a far better explanation in the talk page than in the article itself. --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hexapoda: Camptophylla, Incertae sedis?

The taxobox on Arthropoda has a somewhat ambiguous formatting below Subphylum Hexapoda: Incertae sedis appears a rank of its own: does it refer to Camptophyllia? If so, it might be more clear to combine the 2 on a single line, otherwise denote i.s., or clearly indent Camptophyllia beneath Incertae sedis. Animalparty (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree It is odd to have an expression meaning "off uncertain affiliation" in a listing like this. It is meant to replace the name of taxonomic unit, where this is unclear or where views differ. But without a subtaxon, it is utterly without meaning.-Dwergenpaartje (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it was meant to be the way I have made it now, i.e. "incertae sedis" refers to subphylum. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Much better, although I think it actually needs to say what you have written down here, so Subphylum incertae sedis. --Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Rapidly growing industry and international trade?

In the section: Interaction with humans the following statement is made…”which is the basis of a rapidly growing industry and international trade.”[1] The website cited contains data only up to 2001 and most of the data was only recorded in the 1990’s. Which means that we really don’t know if honey production is a rapidly growing industry. I propose this statement be deleted or more up-to-date references is provided. bpage (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Apiservices — International honey market — World honey production, imports & exports, retrieved October 3, 2008

Scarabaeus cancer

Hi guys. Just saw in the Angolan news agency ANGOP site that live specimens of Scarabaeus cancer were discovered. The article say the species was believed to have been extinct. Can someone comment? Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparent discrepancy between the Phylum Arthropoda and one of its subordinate Classes, Insecta

I have not made any change to either of the pages linked below; I merely observe the following apparent discrepancy for the consideration of better-informed editors -

The Phylum Arthropoda states - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Arthropod They have over a million described species, making up more than 80% of all described living animal species, 

But just one of its subordinate Classes, Insecta - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Insect The number of extant species is estimated at between six and ten million, and potentially represent over 90% of the differing animal life forms on Earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn Oliver (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthropod. 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:

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

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) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthropodology. 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:

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

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) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Arthropod. 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:

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) 19:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "arthropod" and "Arthropoda"

Like several other traditional names used in taxonomy ("plant" and "Plantae" spring to mind), there are now several possible applications of "arthropod" and "Arthropoda". I think it's not quite right to say that "arthropods" = Euarthropoda, as per the recent edits by Smith609; this is one of the possible circumscriptions of Arthropoda, but not the only one. The article needs to explain the traditional use of the term as well as current uncertainties in the phylogeny and hence boundaries of the "arthropods". Peter coxhead (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Past and correct usages are reviewed in detail by Ortega-Hernández, J. 2016. Making sense of “lower” and “upper” stem-group Euarthropoda, with comments on the strict use of the name Arthropoda von Siebold, 1848. Biological Reviews, 91:255–273.
One approach would be to make a separate page called "Euarthropoda"... but then what would go at "Arthropod"? A disambiguation page perhaps? Or a page about the possible clade (which may be a grade) Arthropoda = Euarthropoda + Onychophora? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smith609: Martin, I wasn't suggesting a separate page, just the need to explain, as at Plant, the different and historic uses of the term. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a pretty big change. Should we be updating taxoboxes throughout Wikipedia? Is this the great argument for automatic taxoboxes? Just looking for clarification before I start following this change.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smith609: With all due respect to Dr. Ortega-Hernández, we at Wikipedia should not make major revisions to taxonomy based on one guy's paper (WP:UNDUE). There may be an appropriate place to discuss various definitions of "Arthropoda" sensu stricto or sensu lato, as well as Panarthropoda, Euarthropoda, etc. (note some authors eschew arbitrary ranks and simply refer to clades), but I don't think there is sufficient consensus among current reliable sources to definitively claim that Euarthropoda is a phylum while Arthropoda is not. We need not revise Arthropod every time a new classification or interpretation is proposed. I also don't think that every proposed taxon must have its own article, especially when relationships are unresolved: see Myriapoda#Myriapod relationships for an example covers four different clades (all redirects) in context, rather than four isolated stubs. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Ortega-Hernández (paper available here) doesn't even mention the word "phylum" once in the body of the paper. If Wikipedia is going to show Euarthropoda as a phylum (rather than a clade) in taxoboxes, we should have a source that calls it a phylum. Plantdrew (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The other issue here is Ortega-Hernández's assertions about the "proper" use of the term 'Arthropoda'. The ICodeZN doesn't cover groups above family group (except trivially, e.g. that the names must be uninomials). However, if you apply the general principles of the ICodeZN, then other than the need to include the designated type, the author's circumscription is irrelevant. Arthropoda sensu von Siebold excludes tardigrades, but nothing prevents the use of the name for a taxon that includes them. All the nomenclature codes are clear that names don't equate to circumscriptions. Ortega-Hernández is perfectly free to argue that 'Arthropoda' and 'Panarthropoda' should be used in the way he prefers, but no-one is obliged to follow this usage.
As Plantdrew implies, if we are to use Panarthropoda in taxoboxes, then it must be treated as unranked, as it is in the automated taxobox system, not as a phylum, unless and until Template:Taxonomy/Panarthropoda includes a reliable secondary reference giving the rank as 'phylum'. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling to square these comments with the contents of Ortega Hernandez's paper. The paper proposes nothing new – it is a review of the literature that sets out to resolve terminological confusion. On its basis, Euarthropoda is now used to refer to the phylum that was previously clumsily referred to as 'Arthropoda' - for example [here http://labs.bio.unc.edu/goldstein/SmithGoldstein2017.pdf]. The distinction is important, because the term Arthropoda is required to refer to the hypothesized grouping of Euarthropoda + Onychophora as sister taxa (contra Tactopoda). There is almost total consensus that Onychophora belongs at the phylum level; nothing here changes the taxa that constitute a phylum. Certainly no-one is calling for Panarthropoda to be considered a phylum - it's a superphylum, if it deserves a rank at all. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue isn't necessarily "is Euarthropoda the correct name for the phylum containing crustaceans, myriapods, trilobites, chelicerates, and hexapods?", But rather the due weight we should give this view. Countless sources, from children's books to collegiate zoology books to taxonomic databases refer to "Phylum: Arthropoda". I suspect it would be a fairly radical and startling change to casual readers from lay people to biologists, and would also require the alteration of every arthropod article (a change made somewhat easier via {{automatic Taxobox}}, but prose issues would still persist). For Euarthropoda to stick as the "default" phylum on Wikipedia we'd need solid evidence that "Euarthropoda" is used significantly more often than "Arthropoda" to refer to the same clade. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE states that WP sets out to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". I would not put children's books in this category. Are you aware of a reliable source that sets out, with reasoning, the argument for using Arthropoda in place of Euarthropoda?
In terms of use, I note that Phylum Euarthropoda has been widely used in the subset of the literature in which this distinction is particularly important (specific examples of its use at the phylum level include [6], [7], [8]). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Taxonomy/Euarthropoda#Template-protected_edit_request_on_13_October_2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Taxonomy/Euarthropoda#Template-protected_edit_request_on_13_October_2017. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ref 24 is now a dead link; does anyone have an alternative citation? Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

🐛 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🐛. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Arthropoda or Euarthropoda

I'm trying to start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods#Arthropoda or Euarthropoda. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Long lead, unreferenced material, better sources needed Comment

This article has quite a lot of issues. If there is someone knowledgable about Arthropods it would be very kind if you remove excess text in the lead. In Wikipedia, it is best to have a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead, this article has EIGHT! Another thing is all the unreferenced sections. The last sentence in the Diversity section is unreferenced. The entire second paragraph of the Moulting section is unreferenced. The last three paragraphs in the Evolutionary family tree section rely on just two sources or have two completely unreferenced paragraphs before the paragraph with the sources. I also found a "better source needed"-tag which I will try to fix when I have more time. Please, if anyone is willing to keep Good article status of this article, these problems need to be addressed.

Prose

The Prose is extremely long, and I am trying to find out ways to reduce it. IS there any way it can be much shorter? I feel like the part where it shows the vision of Arthropods and internal cavity is going into too much detail.

consists of segments, each with a pair of appendages

Does the abdomen of an insect have appendages? Fulto006 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)fulto006

Can we have an Arthropod example?

In the Reproduction and Development section, it says "Aquatic arthropods may breed by external fertilization, as for example frogs do." Well, that's all well and fine, but frogs aren't arthropods. Can we find an example of arthropods who use this approach? Chuntuk (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an unsourced assertion. I know of no arthropod that reproduces in this way - even very small animals such as Daphnia, Cyclops and Bosmina have conventional mating behaviours so that only fertilised ova or hatched larval stages are released into the water. Bigger aquatic arthropods such as Carcinus , and indeed probably all the Decapods, have well described conventional mating behaviours. I think this statement is wrongly founded and should be deleted unless good evidence to the contrary can be found.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess it partly depends on exactly what you mean by "external fertilization". Horseshoe crab females lay eggs which are then fertilized by the males, which seems to me to be analogous to frogs. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Peter beat me to it; horseshoe crabs immediately come to mind, and it wouldn't surprise me to find other examples in oddball taxa like Pycnogonids. Dyanega (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Happy with Horseshoe crabs - I should have thought of some of these primitive families. I am unsure about the Sea spiders, they never look as if they have enough abdomen to have reproductive organs, but I guess they must. I would be happy if the example given was Horseshoe crabs.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
By the way, a recent article (doi:10.1093/molbev/msac021) places horseshoe crabs inside Arachnida, making the traditional circumscription of Arachnida not monophyletic, so primitive isn't a good description. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Apologies. My education in taxonomy and phylogeny was in the '60s. Things have probably changed since then.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Velella: as was my formal zoology education! The pace of change in classification in the "molecular era" shows few signs of slowing down. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The paper that Peter links (and that I had heard of but not read until now) is pretty forceful for a molecular taxonomic work; they basically say that the historical treatment of Xiphosura as outside of Arachnida is unsupportable and needs to be overturned. As papers like this go, they are rather aggressive in their assertions, and they really do a lot to anticipate and shut down most objections. As such, it seems odd that neither Wikispecies nor Wikipedia have been revised to accommodate the results, especially in light of some of the other major classification changes that have been proposed within Animalia in the last 5 years (often with much weaker evidence and argumentation) and nonetheless have been adopted here. It seems to me that it would be justifiable to make more substantial changes in the WS/WP classifications, and treat Xiphosura as a clade within Arachnida. Dyanega (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dyanega: I had thought of doing this, but the problem is that the paper does not say that Xiphosura should be placed within Arachnida, but just that Arachnida is not monophyletic. ("Arachnida is not monophyletic" probably attracts more attention, and hence citations, than "Xiphosura belongs in Arachnida".) I haven't yet seen a secondary source that places Xiphosura in an expanded Arachnida. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I can see, and agree, that waiting for other authors to follow an example is a fair criterion to judge whether a classification change has been adopted, but I have two concerns about it: (1) this isn't a formal WP policy, and as noted, there are definitely a number of such papers that result in immediate major edits, without any waiting period to see if a conclusion is accepted by others (2) the time lag can be substantial, and tracking the literature requires an exceptional degree of diligence by an editor. It does seem to be entirely decided by how aggressive an editor is, whether a "wait and see" approach is used, versus a "hot off the press" approach. Any formal policy that dictated the former would run the risk of forcing reverts, and greatly discourage otherwise competent expert editors, so I'm not sure if there's a good way to deal with this as a general rule. Dyanega (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dyanega: it's not the position of Xiphosura that concerns me, and the relevant articles should certainly be edited to include this paper's placing of Xiphosura within traditional Arachnida. The issue for me is strictly one about the use of the name "Arachnida". We can give the paper as a source in drawing a cladogram showing Xiphosura within traditional Arachnida, but not (at least in my view) as a source for naming the expanded clade "Arachnida". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Small arthropods with bivalve-like shells have been found .. dating 541 to 539 million years ago ???

I have some problems with this sentence. 4 sources are given, the first about Radiolaria, the second about sponges, the other two more to the point. Looked them up and neither gave such a date, the Chinese one (about sponges) and the last one give a stage2/3 age and so is in line with what we already now, the first Australian one does not give any precise date. So based on these articles such a claim seems unsupported. Can anybody shed some light on this, because if it is true it would be quite exciting. Also it should be changed to "Pieces of small arthropods.." since the articles only discuss small pieces, no complete animals are known. Codiv (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Taxobox bloat

If we're going to include extinct arthropod groups at all in the taxobox, then we need to be judicious and sparing about what we're including. We simply can't just list all of the incertae sedis extinct Cambrian arthropods in the infobox, because then the infobox would be comparable in length to the article itself. I think we should only include groups that are considered to have major phylogenetic importance. like Dinocaridids, Artiopods, Radiodonts, Fuxianhuiids etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Gravenhorst as author of "Arthropoda"

I think Chilocharlie was justified in updating the authorship by removing von Siebold; the review of the evidence by Martinez-Munoz is not only compelling, but also indisputable: the Gravenhorst paper is clearly from 1843, and the word "Arthropoda" is quite plainly visible there - [9]. I see no reason not to allow the edit. Dyanega (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's understandable though given that the 2013 paper dedicated to the question seems to have got it wrong. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the etymology section to acknowledge the confusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I've updated Wikispecies, Wikidata and Commons to use "Gravenhorst, 1843" accordingly; apparently the latter two were still displaying "Latreille, 1829" as the author. As Martínez-Muñoz says though, this may not be the last word on the subject, Gravenhorst is just currently the earliest known author to have used "Arthropoda". Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed it "appears to have been first used" rather than "coined" given the uncertainty. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Run bot on taxobox across languages

Hi, Would it be possible to run a bot to correct the authorship of Arthropoda in the taxoboxes of the page in every language? The correct author and date is now regarded as "Gravenhorst, 1843" and it is correct in the English page. Wikipedia could also consider hiring taxonomic editors. That way needed knowledge for improvements could be brought in. One example: The authorship of a taxon is a statement that holds across languages and should be displayed consistently in the taxobox of every page. Chilocharlie (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of those situtions where while tedious, it would probably be faster to just edit all of the articles manually rather make a trans-wiki bot for this one single task. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed it on the Spanish and Russian wiki's which get the highest page viewcounts after enwiki. Realistically, dozens of these Wikis gets so little views that they're probably not worth updating. [10] Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I fixed it in the German Wikipedia, arguably rather important, since the authors involved were German. Dyanega (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I've now fixed all the ones in the top 10. No idea how to fix the arabic one, as I'm not comfortable with the right to left formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Fixed all of those in the top 20 aside from Arabic. It's amazing how many still listed Latrielle as the authority, despite it know to be wrong for ages. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Collapsible list not working

The template "collapsible list" used in the taxobox subdivisions doesn't work properly, as it is now it looks as if Dinocaridida contains all of Arthropoda. It is not a good template to be used in this context, there already were attempts of using it in Animal and the result was just as confusing, with Ctenophora as the clade containing all animals. It doesn't make sense to keep using it. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 00:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: a newline before the first item seems to be necessary, but it's still not quite right as the list starts with two bullet points. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
{{Hidden}} seems to work properly. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Taxobox subdivisions length

Maybe we should find a way to include all those basal fossil genera and incertae sedis fossil genera in the main text so that the taxobox subdivisions aren't so lengthy? —Snoteleks (Talk) 12:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't want them in the main text, either, massive unreadable clutter, and tremendously unhelpful for 99% of readers (and the 1% know it already). Maybe a List of arthropod genera? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I would also put them in the main text but NOT as an endless list of fossil genera, but in paragraphs explaining their taxonomic affinities and current classification. —Snoteleks (Talk) 16:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Mm, well, good luck with that; I'd still have an issue with the approach because only a few of the fossil genera will be significant at this the phylum level – we can't and shouldn't try to mention them all, let alone to describe each one's significance. We should be looking down the other end of the telescope, aiming to discuss the groups that are key to the evolution of the arthropods as a whole, not taking a pile of taxa and trying desperately to jam them into the article somehow: "that way madness lies". An analogy would be the good practice of selecting images from Commons to illustrate the key points of an article; the opposite is trying to wedge in all one's favourite pics of fossils and dragonflies and butterflies and oh here are some nice ones of beetles ... until the article is a disastrous mess. We can't go in that direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthropod/Archive_2&oldid=1217157911"