Template talk:Taxonomy/Chordata

Template-protected edit request on 25 May 2020
176.156.30.186 (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2021
chordoto 72.137.188.195 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

 *  Note: editors involved with Automatic taxobox and WikiProject Tree of Life have been notified of this discussion.   P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As several recent studies have cast doubt on the validity of Deuterostomia as a clade (eg. ), I suggest that the latter be temporarily removed from the claimed chordate phylogeny, and that |parent=Deuterostomia be changed to |parent=Bilateria. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: seems like this would shake things up a bit, to include removal of the clade Nephrozoa. Deuterostomia is shown as a "superphylum" not a "clade". So this appears to require discussion and consensus before the need to remove these classifications from articles is established. Also looks like a lot of work for just a temporary removal.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that Deuterostomia is shown as a superphylum doesn't really affect the argument much, as "clade" is a more generic term including these as well as other ranks. Nephrozoa is also contested, and the second sentence in that latter article mentions that both Nephorozoa and Deuterostomia are invalidated by some studies (see Xenambulacraria for another hypothesis).
 * Also, I meant "temporary" as in "we don't know for sure yet" - it is likely that the latest studies showing Deuterostomia as invalid will recieve more support as more studies are made on basal bilaterian phylogeny. However, it is also possible that future studies will in fact uphold Deuterostomia as a clade. In any case, the superphyla/clades Deuterostomia and Nephrozoa do not have anymore the scientific backing that they used to have, and claiming them as the definitive parents of Chordata would violate WP:NPOV in light of recent studies.
 * In fact, Template:Animalia already takes this into account, placing all of Chordata, Xenacoelomorpha, Ambulacraria and Protostomia at the base of Bilateria. (Their discussion on the topic)
 * For reference, the proposals frequently found in recent scientific literatures are the following:
 * Basal Xenambulacraria:
 * Bilateria
 * Xenambulacraria
 * Xenacoelomorpha
 * Ambulacraria
 * Nephrozoa
 * Chordata
 * Protostomia
 * Basal Xenacoelomorpha:
 * Bilateria
 * Xenacoelomorpha
 * Nephrozoa
 * Deuterostomia
 * Chordata
 * Ambulacraria
 * Protostomia
 * Basal Protostomia/Deuterostomia:
 * Bilateria
 * Deuterostomia
 * Chordata
 * Xenambulacraria
 * Xenacoelomorpha
 * Ambulacraria
 * Protostomia
 * Four-way polytomy:
 * Bilateria
 * Chordata
 * Xenacoelomorpha
 * Ambulacraria
 * Protostomia
 * Again, this is only my opinion, and I'd be happy if a discussion could be held on this in order to ascertain consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed explanation. And for agreeing that there is enough work ahead to warrant the need to ascertain consensus.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * for example, there are probably a lot of family trees in various articles, such as the one at Chordate, that will have to be altered if the Deuterostomes and Nephrozoa are erased:


 *  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is clearly some uncertainty over the validity of Deuterostoma, but it is still widely accepted and there is no agreement on the alternative topology and taxonomy. We cannot reflect the ongoing primary research in the taxobox. What we should follow is secondary sources and some form of consensus taxonomy. In my opinion, the most suitable for this is the consensus tree in Giribet & Edgecombe (2020) (see my version of this tree at Giribet_&_Edgecombe_(2020), although I'm open to alternatives. Thus I would retain Deuterostoma in the taxobox and leave discussion of the alternative theories for the text of articles.
 * P.S. Adding references to the alternative proposals listed above would be useful for future discussion. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I already suggested discussing this last year, but then it was ignored. Thank you for re-raising the topic and a more detailed description of the idea. HFoxii (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, but willing to amend. As u:Jts1882 points out, we should follow secondary sources, and not the primary research; and the secondary sources don't seem to yet accept dropping Deuterostomia. Are there any secondary sources that have dropped it? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)