Talk:Metacarcinus gracilis

Metacarcinus or Cancer?

Doesn't it seem premature to accept this generic designation? In particular, this designation by Ng et al. is not supported by the molecular study of Harrison. So, I suggest reversion back to Cancer gracilis. Sushilover2000 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Harrison & Crespi study is more than 10 years old, used only some of the 23 species in Cancer (sensu lato) and examined a single gene. By current standards, it's fairly weak. Different methods of phylogenetic inference produced different topologies, and the support values were fairly low. In contrast, most recent papers (including, significantly, Ng et al.) include the genus Metacarcinus. We have to follow the prevailing usage, so even if it isn't monophyletic, we have to carry on using it. Non-monophyly doesn't make the genus invalid, by the way, it may just mean that the boundaries of the various genera may need to be redrawn. In particular, if the Dungeness crab is in any new genus that doesn't contain Cancer pagurus (or the type species of another older genus), that new genus must be called Metacarcinus under the ICZN. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Problem is that Ng et al., don't even cite the Harrison and Crespi study, and there are no other molecular studies available. So Harrison and Crespi may be weak, but it is the only one and it is many times better than Ng et al. Going back to the old and not widely accepted genus of Metacarcinus seems very premature. I have no idea of why Ng et al. did that, but it certainly is not supported by the molecular data. I guess in a few years when somebody does a decent molecular study, we will know. Blindly following the obviously flawed Ng et al. now will just confuse people.--Sushilover2000 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, a recent review of Cancer magister also rejects the genus Metacarcinus. Rasmuson, L. 2013. The Biology, Ecology and Fishery of the Dungeness crab, Cancer magister. Advances in Marine Biology. 65:95-148. 168.96.62.173 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metacarcinus gracilis. 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/20110606061453/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)