Talk:Eumalacostraca

Merge with Malacostraca
I suggest merging this page with Malacostraca. Since the subclass Eumalacostraca contains almost all living malacostracans, their coverage differs only slightly, and the page seems somewhat redundant. --Crustaceanguy 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~


 * Support, for the reasons noted above. --Crustaceanguy 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unconvinced — it could be done, but I'm not sure that there is any need to. The circumscription of the two is quite different (even excluding fossils, Leptostraca, and probably Stomatopoda, are in one but not the other), and the defining characters and shared character states will (by definition) be quite different. The argument of near identity of coverage is not enough; Polyphaga contains almost all beetles; Eutheria contains almost all mammals; Neognathae contains almost all birds. It is probably the norm that at every node in a cladogram, one branch is much more diverse than the other. The articles are currently fairly short, but that's not because there isn't enough to say that could fill a longer article. Having short articles on taxa at subordinate ranks isn't really a problem, whereas cluttering up an article like Malacostraca with information of limited (or tangential) importance to it, is more of one, in my opinion. --Stemonitis 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support or at lest in part. If I wanted to read about the malacostraca, I would have to go through each single paragraph description thorugh the taxonomy? Yes, the Phyllocarida might not even be real malacostracans. I would like to add the differences between the orders, there is a page I saw about clearly the caridoid facies called decapod anatomy, as most grouping here are odd. mysidacea is a page (obsolete), yet the caprellida are following a very recent classification (2005). Btw, Lots of odd fossil info. Eumalacostraca go to Devonian, only Archaeostraca to the Cambrian, which makes that sentence odd. --Squidonius (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)