Talk:Chelicerata

Untitled
Ref: ITIS 82697

I think giving ITIS reference numbers for groups is probably a bad idea. We are not specifically following their taxonomy, which is often idiosyncratic though not for this particular group, and so there is no particular reason to single them out this way. -- Josh Grosse


 * I was actually emulating other group pages which use the ITIS scheme (eg Clover) and following the standards at WikiProject Tree of Life which recommend that we cite our references at the bottom of the table, in the form "Ref:   YYYY-MM-DD". 'ITIS' is simply one kind of reference, there's nothing to stop us adding more references underneath (e.g. from NCBI or the "Tree of Life Web Project").  By including it we aren't really singling it out and saying it's the one and only "canonical" reference by including it at the bottom.   We should definitely include as many backup references as possible.   At the very least we should note the ITS number as backup reference in the Talk page.  -- Lexor 02:02 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Pointing to things like ITIS and NCBI can be useful, but I don't think it makes sense when the classification is well-known and relatively well established. Just about any taxonomy base that covers arthropods would be a valid source here, not to mention printed materials - if someone wants to double check the system, they need only open an invertebrate zoology text or type Chelicerata into a search engine.  If we want our references to be helpful, we should only include helpful ones.  What might be worth including here is a sitation to the original definition of the taxon, if we can find it. -- Josh Grosse


 * Fair enough, but in that case, we should update the WikiProject Tree of Life page and/or discuss the policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to reflect this, because the current template/policy on that page suggests that references are part of the standard template format/style. --Lexor 07:24 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Chelicerata. 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/20081216214632/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2039/Pages%20605-614.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2039/Pages%20605-614.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209102852/http://homepage.mac.com:80/paulselden/Sites/Website/ARES.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/paulselden/Sites/Website/ARES.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216214632/http://www.zoology.unibe.ch/behav/pdf_files/Schuetz_EvolEcolRes03.pdf to http://www.zoology.unibe.ch/behav/pdf_files/Schuetz_EvolEcolRes03.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400797.html

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) 01:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Outdated page
The internal phylogeny of the group has greatly changed since this article was revised. Merostomata is no longer valid and Chelicerata has been divided into several clades that include many stem-genera. An important article with more than 8000 views should be fixed already. This article is where most of the changes have taken place. Pinging, the reviewer of this page. I will not mention the nominator out of respect for him. Super  Ψ   Dro  20:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article needs the phylogeny updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have included an updated cladogram based on the paper in question in the Eurypterid article (scroll down to classification) which should give you some clue as to what needs to be updated in regards to the phylogeny. In regard to other related articles, I also think that many important changes need to be made with the Xiphosura as that group does not appear to be phylogenetically valid. I would also suggest new articles on Prosomapoda, Dekatriata and Xiphosurida, with the other intermediate clades being discussed in these as well (Sclerophorata can be discussed in Dekatriata, Euchelicerata in Chelicerata). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Xiphosura is still a valid clade that contains Xiphosurida and the paraphyletic family Kasibelinuridae and possibly Maldybulakia. Anyways, the xiphosurans need a lot of work since most of the genera are only redirects (including Xiphosurida). Super   Ψ   Dro  21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, still many animals referred to currently as "xiphosurans" here on Wikipedia will need to be updated as some have ended up outside the Xiphosurida + Kasibelinuridae clade. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess the "Synziphosurine" page should be deleted... Super   Ψ   Dro  22:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should probably be redirected either to "Xiphosura" or "Prosomapoda", yes. I've updated the phylogeny in the infoboxes of Xiphosura and Chelicerata and created articles for Dekatriata and Prosomapoda that can be expanded later down the line. This article still needs a massive update (as does Xiphosura) and we need to figure out what to do with Merostomata. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply redirect Merostomata to Xiphosura and remove the useless links that link to it (which are mostly in eurypterids). I think that at the moment Xiphosura it is not a priority because it is less important than Chelicerata and it has always been that way anyways... But I think a good place to start is Bellinurina (it seems to be short). The prosomapod stem-genera should also be fixed since most of them are redirects. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there might be content to salvage from the article and put into others? I haven't read it yet. Main priorities should be this article (Chelicerata) and expanding the new Prosomapoda and Dekatriata, especially with information on phylogeny and classification. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The history could be moved to Xiphosura, but it is too short and I do not think it can be included so suddenly. The etymology of the group could also serve. There does not seem to be anything relevant for Eurypterida. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can set out to try and fix up Xiphosura and the basal prosomapods but I'll be pretty busy over the course of next week with other stuff. One thing that you could do in the meantime is to figure out how to amend the List of xiphosuran genera that you've worked on. I imagine that many of the genera included are no longer within the Xiphosura as per Lamsdell 2013? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact I removed them a few weeks ago from the list. I would also like to participate in the expansion of the basal prosomapods once I finish with Adelophthalmoidea and Offacolus. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)