Talk:Nautiloid

Untitled (1)
I originally wrote this article in 1998 and published it on the Web.... It need links to other articles. Dlloyd 20:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Untitled (2)
Portions of this text are : "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this. Dlloyd 00:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge?
Should this be merged with Nautilus or vice versa? Seem like they overlap considerably, but I'm no cephalopod expert. --Lexor|Talk 13:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I see, nautiloid's refer to all the extinct forms of cephalopod's as well. OK, nix that.  --Lexor|Talk

It actually might have been better to have merged the singular Nautiloid and Nautilus and to put the content of this article under the Nautiloidea,the subclass, or at least under Nautiloids. Even so there is a distinction between a nautiloid, any individual within the Nautiloidea, and the specific genus Nautilus J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ammonoids
"The ammonoids...evolved from the nautiloids" - does this mean ammonoids are not nautiloids? Perhaps it should say they are realted to the ammonoids. --DanielCD 16:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tweaked the sentence a bit -- just a bit confused about which designation is higher or if they are equal -- ammonoid and nautiloid. --DanielCD 16:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think taxonomists have this well in hand yet. There are references that say Ammonoidea and Belemnoidea (and other Coleoidea) evolved from older Nautiloidea, but that would mean, cladistically, that they are all nautiloids (see the classification tree on Cephalopoda. ToLWeb shows a somewhat different tree than the one we're using (which comes from this PDF which is also what CephBase uses. Neither show well any understanding of where the exticnt groupings fit in or how the extant and extinct groupings are related to each other. - UtherSRG 18:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanielCD, No, Ammonoids are not nautiloids, except perhaps in the narrow cladistic sense even though nautilidods through the Bactritida gave rise to the Ammonoidea. Ammonoids are not only related, being cephalopds, to nautiloids, but evolved from them. The problem may be with being able to distinguish the open ended cladistic approach from the descriptive based ordinary taxonomic one.

"Taxonomists" may not have this well in hand but I dare say ordinary biologists and paleontologists do. John  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.H.McDonnell (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Identical images, different labels.
Identical photos on this page, where it's labeled Trilacinoceras, and under Lituites (where it's labeled Lituites). There is no other mention of Trilacinoceras within the text of either article, nor does Trilacinoceras have its own article. To the uneducated reader (like myself) this is confusing. Was Trilacinoceras a species of the genus Lituites? If so, please specify the label in the Lituites article. If not, one of them seems to have been mislabeled. ---Sluzzelin 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lituites lituus Montford is known from the Middle Ordovician (Middle Llanvirn) of the Baltic region (Sweden etc), but it seems that the genus (but different species) has also been found in China, where Trilacinoceras is also found. Accoridng to this reference, is found with Trilacinoceras  (it is hard to read the small writing, but the species names seems to be Lituites ninkianganae(?) - probably the wrong spelling because it doesn't come up on Google book search -   and Trilacinoceras discors. But according to these photos, Trilacinoceras looks nothing like Lituites (and is also found in Europe); assuming these speciomens are correctly identified of course.


 * According to this page the species would be Lituites breynius. But I don't know if this is a valid species, or if it is, if this is teh right identification.  I wouldn't trust these commercial fossil sellers to correctly identify a fossil.  In fact for all we know these fossils may be fakes, or at least in part painted and reconstructed; see Fake and enhanced Fossils - what to look out for (very useful page!) and Faked fossils from around the world.  In fact, the sale of fake fossils is quite a big industry!  M Alan Kazlev 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Classification
The classification used in this page seems to be a bit messy. First, Nautiloidea is called a subclass, then it contains several subclasses, one of which is also called Nautiloidea, and apparently it is also paraphyletic. Apparently, nautiloids are now an informal group, but nevertheless the introduction still mentions a "Subclass Nautiloidea" to which all nautiloids belong. Could this please be clarified? Ucucha 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this can be confusing. In the system derived from Bather's classification, cephalopods are divided into subclasses Nautiloidea, Ammonoidea, and Coleoidea, and the nautiloids are definitely paraphyletic with respect to the other two subclasses.  The Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology divides that Nautiloidea into several subclasses: Endoceratoidea, Actinoceratoidea, a restricted Nautiloidea, and Bactritida.  Nautiloidea in this system remains paraphyletic with respect to the other subclasses.  Bactritids have also been considered ammonoids, since they lie at the juncture of the major subclasses.
 * In Teichert's later system, he went beyond the Treatise system by separating Orthoceratoidea from Nautiloidea. The former became the paraphyletic root stock of the cephalopods, while Nautiloidea became a more restricted group comprising mostly the nautilus and its clear extinct relatives.
 * Ideally, we could resolve major clades of cephalopods, with the total group of the living nautilus standing in for Teichert's restricted Nautiloidea. Unfortunately the relationships of many fossil cephalopods to modern ones and to each other are not well resolved.  Though the traditional Nautiloidea has its shortcomings, it seems useful for the time being to use the name for non-ammonoid, non-coleoid cephalopods.  Cephal-odd (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ucucha. Classification, half fact based on morphologic distinctions and evolutionary sequence, half opinion as to what those facts mean and how best to arrange them. There is overwhelming concesus regarding the validity of separate Nautiloidea, Ammonoidea, and Coleoidea, based on fundimental differences in things like the radula; whether there is a shell or not, construction of the seta and siphuncle. These is less consensus as to the Endoceratoidea and Actinoceratoidea and where the Bactritida should be placed. These are matters of perspective that should be understood as being primarily just that.

To understand Teicherts modification, one has to understand the taxonomy as it was previously. At that time the Nautiloidea were divided into a number of orders, starting with the Ellesmerocerida. Later the plectronocerids were separated out from the Ellesmerocerida as the Plectronocerida which bacame the oldest group. Among the various orders, not included the generally understood Ammonoidea and Coleoidea, Teichert determined that two were diverse and distinct enough to be called subclasses of their own. Rousseau Flower did not agree, finding them superflous and redundant.

In Teichert's new scheme the Plectronocerida and other exclusively Cambrian orders, the Ellesmerocerida, Ascocerida, and Orthocerid are reclassified in the Orthoceratoidea. The Nauiloidea is redefined as containing the Tarphycerida, Oncocerida, Discosorida and what should actually read, Nautilida. The Orthoceratiodea may be paraphyletic, nothing unusual about that, having given rise through the Ellesmerocerida to the Nautiloidea and through the Orthocerida to the Bactrtiida which gave rise to the Ammonoidea. Among the revised Nautloidea the Oncocerida are paraphyeltic, again nothing unusual, having given rise to the Nautilida. Of course if you prefer the cladistic approach and take it to its illogical conclusion, all cephalopds are reduced to plectronocerids. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.H.McDonnell (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Better Heading
It would probably have been better (more scientific) to have had this article under the formal taxon Nautiloidea rather than the vernacular term Nautiloid which may refer to any member, not just Nautilus. But since the article is well established and well written overall, I suppose it's best to leave as is and to further clarify within. JMtalk 8/15/09

Bather classification
This paragraph was recently deleted:
 * "Traditionally, the most common classification of the cephalopods has been a three-fold division (by Bather, 1888), into the nautiloids, ammonoids, and coleoids. This article is about nautiloids in that broad sense, sometimes called Nautiloidea sensu lato."

but I think we should restore it because it mentions the origin of the classification that appears in the taxobox, and explains the broad use of Nautiloidea that used in this article. It contrasts with the narrower usage of the Treatise, or the still narrower sense used by Wade, or Teichert 1988. Perhaps because the relations among several nautiloid orders remains unresolved, this broad sense of "nautiloid" has been used a great deal over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cephal-odd (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Title
The title of this article, Nautiloid, is misleading. There is a grammatical disconnect. The word nautiloid is singular and applies to an individual animal or fossil, or at best a single species. It calls only for a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic discussion. The article on the other hand is about a plural group, the entire suite of nautiloids which go to make up the subclass Nautiloidea -- which is what the article really is about. I tried renaming the title to Nautiloids, the next best thing to renaming it according to the taxon, but was immediately thwarted.

Nautiloidea appears in taxoboxes. It's the subclass Nautiloidea, not subclass Nautiloid or even subclass Nautiloids. Nautiloid and nautiloids are useful vernacular terms that make conversation or reading less stilted, but they are not proper taxonomic terms. Shouldn't Nautiloidea link to a page with the same title. Isn't this where conformity should lie.

J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to your first point, please see WP:PLURAL, and with regards to your second point, please see Taxobox usage. I'm not trying to thwart article improvement; I want to see these articles improved as much as anyone. I'm simply trying to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines, which are the result of community consensus. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, I'm not sure how much there really is one beyond the expressions of a few. Not that their ideas should be disregarded, just taken in perspective. As for taxoboxes, they supposesdly list taxa, not vernacular names. This still doesn't quite get to the problem of the title. In that regard, why "dummy down", why not help people "smarten up". It's just as easy to redirect from Nautiloid to Nautiloidea, for those who might begin there. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cladistics
Cladistics is a useful tool in determining and sorting out phylogenetic relationships. See Ammonoids above. But lets not get hung up on it. There is the real problem of diminishing returns. A clade is defined from an arbitrary beginning which may be useful only for a particular study. If the concern is nautiloids it is pointless to begin the clade with the ancestral mollusk. Beginning it with Plectronoceras goes back far enough. On the other hand if we're discussing ammonoids there is no need to go further back than the bactritids and include the entire suite of true nautiloids. A major problem with cladistics is the prohibition against paraphyeltic groups which results in evolved and distinctively different groups being regained within their ancestral group. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition Nautiloid
In the section on Taxonomic relationships it states that nautiloids "are defined by the exclusion of both those descendent groups" (i.e. ammonoids and coleoids). In any case, it strikes me that this is a poor way of defining something, namely by exclusion. What if there were no ammonoids or coleoids and only nautiloids, then how would they be defined. Best to define them on their observable characters such as concave septa and retrochoanitic septal necks and leave off reference to exclusion. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

shell chemistry
No mention of shell chemistry in the section describing the shell, nor either at Ammonoidea - is anyone competent out there willing to add a paragraph? The fact that aragonite and calcite have different solubility is often so important in taphonomy of cephalopods that I think it should be detailed here. 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nautiloid. 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/20050411043421/http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~palaeont/fossilnautiloidea/fossnautpalneocephalopoda.htm to http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~palaeont/fossilnautiloidea/fossnautpalneocephalopoda.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050328205726/http://www.palaeos.com/invertebrates/Molluscs/Cephalopoda/Nautiloidea.htm to http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Molluscs/Cephalopoda/Nautiloidea.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Kröger 1007?
In the classification section Orthoceratoidea is listed as "the Orthoceratoidea of Kröger 1007". There are two Kröger citations used in this article (Kröger, B.; Landing, E. (2008) and Kröger, B.; Yun-bai, Y. B. (2009)) and it is not clear (at least to me) which of these is being referenced there (or if it is some other paper/article by Kröger). It is not clear what the "1007" is referring to.  Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 11:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)