Talk:Adelophthalmidae

Wiedopterus
Hi. I think including Wiedopterus within Adelophthalmidae is somewhat excessive. Poschmann suggested that the genus could belong to Adelophthalmoidea, but researchers do these suggestions all the time, yet we shouldn't make them formal. Poschmann did not include Wiedopterus within the superfamily or the family, not even with a question mark, so doing so here seems original research to me. I think it's best to keep it as Eurypterina incertae sedis, of course mentioning its most likely relation with Adelophthalmoidea/idae but keeping this away from infoboxes. What do you think? Super  Ψ   Dro  12:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's excessive if we have the question mark. Poschmann did not include it, no, but he said it "probably" belonged to the family and even suggested that it was a derived member close to Adelophthalmus. Like with Unionopterus or Holmipterus (both of whom the Dunlop-Penney-Jekel list put as Eurypterida incertae sedis), we're not making a formal taxonomical statement, just noting that Wiedopterus has an uncertain classification and possibly belongs to the given family. In other groups of animals (such as the megaraptoran dinosaurs, with very uncertain relationships) this seems to be okay. We could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology if you want. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference with Unionopterus is that it has been often included in Adelophthalmidae in several papers (some of which didn't even put a question mark next to the name). In the other hand, Wiedopterus has only been discussed once in a paper which didn't include it within Adelophthalmidae, formally or tentatively. I don't know much about Holmipterus but I remember it had a similar situation, I was somewhat opposed to your removal of Holmipterus from Carcinosomatoidea but I didn't say anything because I barely remembered anything about the genus and the superfamily is far from being my area of expertise. I don't want to sound too stubborn in this situation but yes, I think it's best to ask at the WikiProject to see what do they say. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I put Holmipterus in the Carcinosomatidae (with the question mark) because it was recovered there in a phylogenetic analysis (which is pretty formal) - in all likelihood the Holmipterus fossils represent two genera (one carcinosomatid and one megalograptid) but unless that's made formal it's best to keep it at its last recovered position (Carcinosomatidae).
 * Wiedopterus was not formally included but it was very strongly suggested to be an adelophthalmid. I've asked at the WikiProject - I'll go with whatever they think is the best approach. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case with Holmipterus, sure then, I won't oppose that. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's weighing towards going with incertae sedis in the taxobox so I've changed it back to that and removed Wiedopterus from the Adelophthalmidae taxobox. I may have misinterpreted those other cases I mentioned so you're probably right that it was premature. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Good that we've arranged this out. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)