Talk:Antennopoda

Animals Low‑importance

Antennopoda is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

This is a competing hypothesis with Tactopoda[edit]

This is a competing hypothesis with Tactopoda regarding the relationship of arthropods (s.s), onychophorans and tardigrades, and should mention that article. Plantdrew (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the seperate branch for Stanleycaris?[edit]

I do not understand why a seperate branch is made for Stanleycaris, as the article on this species shows that it is just another Radiodont, part of the class Dinocaridida, so there seems to be rather random to name this species as a seperate branch. It's only unique property apears to be its third eye, whereas f.i. Opabinia (another Dinocarid) had 5 eyes and a strange (so far unique?) proboscis. Whether Dinocaridida as a group should be considered arthropods or panarthropods is a topic of debate and far from concluded, so this item can be improved by changing Stanleycaris to Dinocarids. Codiv (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for us to unilaterally make the change you assert. Also you just described phylogenetic characters that are used to by the experts to described separate taxa, so what papers can you supply that support the change you are asking for. As I noted at talk:Prototaxites your personal incredulity is not valid reasoning to make WP:POV WP:OR changes.--Kev min § 17:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited paper on Stanleycaris treats it as a radiodont, and says "Radiodonta is sister to a clade containing Mandibulata and Arachnomorpha (=Euarthropoda) plus isoxyids and Opabinia. We refer to the larger clade including all these taxa as Arthropoda sensu Aria." "Euarthropoda" is defined differently in that paper than it is in the cladogram on this article. De Haro's 1999 paper treats Antennopoda is including tardigrades and arthropods. This entire article seems to be constructed to push the fringe view (which I think is pushed by Ortega-Hernandez, although that paper is paywalled for me at the moment) that "Arthropoda" must refer to a clade containing onychophorans and "euarthropods" (or just arthropods as defined by neonatologists). While Arthropoda was originally defined to include onychophorans, circumscriptions can change. We don't have Euplantae to exclude sponges that were once classified as plants. References here seem to be a grab bag of sources mentioning Antennopoda or Euarthropoda, but defining them in different ways. Plantdrew (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]