Talk:Prosobranchia

Opistho/Proso
I believe that "opistho" means behind, and "proso" in front... am I wrong?--IronChris 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. These terms deal with the position of the gills with respect to the heart of the gastropod. JoJan 09:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so shouldn't the phrase "Prosobranch signifies "gills in front of the heart", this in contrast with opisthobranch: "gills to the right and behind the heart"" be modified? Because technically it doesn't signify exactly that... how about "Prosobranch signifies "gills in front", this in contrast with opisthobranch: "gills behind", alluding to the position of the gills in relation to the heart."? Maybe a mention should be made of the language it comes from too (greek). --IronChris 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No - The term opisthobranch, when not describing the order, can still be used in a descriptive way, meaning "a gastropod with the gills to the right and behind the heart and having no operculum". This location to the rear results because of detorsion in development. When you look at a dissection of a sea hare (such as Aplysia), you can clearly see that the gill is located at the right side (see also ). Therefore mentioning "to the right and behind the heart" is technically correct, but most authors just mention "gills (or gill) behind the heart". JoJan 08:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sure it's correct, it's just that the etymology of Opisthobranch doesn't imply "at the right behind the heart" explicitely, that's the meaning given to it subsequently. Not a big deal. --IronChris 14:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

An Outdated Subclass?
I am a marine biology student and my textbook and lecture notes have made no mention of it being an outdated subclass. My textbook was published in 2002 so is resonably recent.

Could someone clarify this? I have never come across the prosobranchia ever being mentioned as not really existing as a taxon anymore.

Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.174.8 (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Check Gastropoda and especially the latest revision of the taxonomy by Bouchet and Rocroi Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). JoJan (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

a bit POV
"and therefore it is no longer acceptable to be used as a taxon, because taxonomy must reflect phylogeny, in other words the classification of a group must reflect its evolutionary descent, as far as that is known." This may be a majority view, but it's not an universal one, so it's POV to present it as The Truth -- phylogenetic nomenclature isn't universally accepted as an absolute. 165.91.172.201 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)