Talk:Polydesmida

Classification needs revision
Since Polydesmida is the largest and probably most-studied group of millipedes, with a complicated taxonomy full of suborders, superfamilies, and tribes, I'd like to propose a Classification section be added to show all supra-famiial classification at once, rather than having to navigate through the various suborders individually. This would likely require editing the downstream taxon pages and taxoboxes for taxonomic concordance, so I want to put the word out before shaking things up too much. As far as I can tell, the most complete authoritative classification is currently that of Shear 2011, and I propose that be a the template used, unless more recent revisions are available. (The current sources for many families seem to be online checklists or other non-authoritative sources).

Here's a rough draft of the proposed composition- appropriate links would of course be added, and the authroity names& dates could probably be dropped in the interest of reducing clutter:

Suborder Leptodesmidea Brölemann, 1916 Suborder Dalodesmidea Hoffman, 1980 Suborder Strongylosomatidea Brölemann, 1916 Suborder Polydesmidea Pocock, 1887
 * Superfamily Chelodesmoidea Cook, 1895
 * Family Chelodesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Superfamily Platyrhacoidea Pocock, 1895
 * Family Aphelidesmidae Brölemann, 1916
 * Family Platyrhacidae Pocock, 1895
 * Superfamily Rhachodesmoidea Carl, 1903
 * Family Rhachodesmidae Carl, 1903
 * Family Tridontomidae Loomis & Hoffman, 1962
 * Superfamily Sphaeriodesmoidea Humbert & DeSaussure, 1869
 * Family Campodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Family Holistophallidae Silvestri, 1909
 * Family Sphaeriodesmidae Humbert & DeSaussure, 1869
 * Superfamily Xystodesmoidea Cook, 1895
 * Family Eurymerodesmidae Causey, 1951
 * Family Euryuridae Pocock, 1909
 * Family Gomphodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Family Oxydesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Family Xystodesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Family Dalodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Family Vaalogonopodidae Verhoeff, 1940
 * Family Paradoxosomatidae Daday, 1889
 * Infraorder Oniscodesmoides Simonsen, 1990
 * Superfamily Oniscodesmoidea Simonsen, 1990
 * Family Dorsoporidae Loomis, 1958
 * Family Oniscodesmidae DeSaussure, 1860
 * Superfamily Pyrgodesmoidea Silvestri, 1896
 * Family Ammodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Family Cyrtodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Family Pyrgodesmidae Silvestri, 1896
 * Infraorder Polydesmoides Pocock, 1887
 * Superfamily Haplodesmoidea Cook, 1895
 * Family Haplodesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Superfamily Opisotretoidea Hoffman, 1980
 * Family Opisotretidae Hoffman, 1980
 * Superfamily Polydesmoidea Leach, 1815
 * Family Cryptodesmidae Karsch, 1880
 * Family Polydesmidae Leach, 181539
 * Superfamily Trichopolydesmoidea Verhoeff 1910
 * Family Fuhrmannodesmidae Brölemann, 1916
 * Family Macrosternodesmidae Brölemann 1916
 * Family Nearctodesmidae Chamberlin & Hoffman, 1958

Animalparty (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In principle, I agree, albeit with a few caveats. The fact that taxa have been proposed at subordinate ranks doesn't mean that we always have to include them all. I would also suggest that a template isn't the best method for doing this. Navbox templates are intended to guide readers around a series of (existing) articles; in this case, almost none of the downstream articles exist, making a template less appropriate. I think here, a straightforward list in the article will be more than enough. I also wonder how "Strongylosomatidea" can be the name for a suborder containing the single family Paradoxosomatidae; surely Paradoxosomatidea Daday, 1899 is the appropriate name in that instance (although the ICZN doesn't really apply above the family-group, of course). I would also resist the temptation to remove the authorities; with decent formatting, they actually improve the layout, and are important information from a taxonomic point of view. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Leptodesmidea Brölemann, 1916
 * Chelodesmoidea Cook, 1895
 * Chelodesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Platyrhacoidea Pocock, 1895
 * Aphelidesmidae Brölemann, 1916
 * Platyrhacidae Pocock, 1895
 * Rhachodesmoidea Carl, 1903
 * Rhachodesmidae Carl, 1903
 * Tridontomidae Loomis & Hoffman, 1962
 * Sphaeriodesmoidea Humbert & de Saussure, 1869
 * Campodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Holistophallidae Silvestri, 1909
 * Sphaeriodesmidae Humbert & de Saussure, 1869
 * Xystodesmoidea Cook, 1895
 * Eurymerodesmidae Causey, 1951
 * Euryuridae Pocock, 1909
 * Gomphodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Oxydesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Xystodesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Dalodesmidea Hoffman, 1980
 * Dalodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Vaalogonopodidae Verhoeff, 1940
 * Strongylosomatidea Brölemann, 1916
 * Paradoxosomatidae Daday, 1889
 * Polydesmidea Pocock, 1887
 * Oniscodesmoidea Simonsen, 1990
 * Dorsoporidae Loomis, 1958
 * Oniscodesmidae DeSaussure, 1860
 * Pyrgodesmoidea Silvestri, 1896
 * Ammodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Cyrtodesmidae Cook, 1896
 * Pyrgodesmidae Silvestri, 1896
 * Haplodesmoidea Cook, 1895
 * Haplodesmidae Cook, 1895
 * Opisotretoidea Hoffman, 1980
 * Opisotretidae Hoffman, 1980
 * Polydesmoidea Leach, 1815
 * Cryptodesmidae Karsch, 1880
 * Polydesmidae Leach, 1815
 * Trichopolydesmoidea Verhoeff, 1910
 * Fuhrmannodesmidae Brölemann, 1916
 * Macrosternodesmidae Brölemann, 1916
 * Nearctodesmidae Chamberlin & Hoffman, 1958


 * Thanks for your input, I like the look of that. As for the Strongylosomatidea/Paradoxosomatidea I can't offer any clarity right now. It may have been a mistake in Shear 2011, or there may be validity to it. Animalparty (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As an update, regarding the Strongylosomatidea/Paradoxosomatidea usage: From a 2013 global checklist of Paradoxosomatidae: "Suprafamilial names are not governed by the priority rules of the ICZN. Various permutations have been used by various authors, such as: Strongylosomatidea Brölemann 1916, Paradoxosomatidea Hoffman, 1967 or Paradoxosomatidea Daday, 1889. Published catalogs may stabilize the nomenclature". So I guess it's an open issue. From the same source, it's also interesting to note that the nominal genus of the family, Paradoxosoma Daday, 1889, is no longer a valid name (apparently synonymized with Stosatea Gray, 1843), while Strongylosoma Brandt, 1833 is valid. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)