Talk:Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)

Gastropods Top‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Comments

Thank you JoJan for doing this (and for letting me know about it.) I feel this is an excellent addition both to the project and to the encyclopedia as a whole. I agree with your suggestions for how to entitle both this one, and the other new article you would create by moving the Ponder and Lindberg taxonomy to become its own article. As for the taxonomy itself, it will take me some time to get a feel for it, but I think it is an interesting new approach. Invertzoo (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but I find it presumptious and misleading to state "a step closer to reflecting the actual evolutionary history of the phylum Mollusca" since 'actual evolutionary history' is guesswork and unproved theory, and is not likely to be known to science in any of our lifetimes. It would be more appropriate to say something like "a step closer to reflecting the presumed evolutionary history ..." or "commonly held theories of evolutionary history ..." Wikiphobe (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this classification actually accepted yet by the majority of zoologists in the field, given its extreme recentness? The one it aims to replace is itself less than 15 years old, and many people will be consulting Wikipedia to understand texts written between 15 and 150 years ago. If Wikipedia taxonomy follows all the latest fads of cladistic reorganization, it will become useless to anyone except specialists with an interest in cladistics, and every new cladistic reanalysis, however controversial, will prompt truly massive revision, much of it futile. For example, the entry for the widely used term Archaeogastropoda is already "out of date", because it refers archaeogastropods to the 1997 groups Eogastropoda and Orthogastropoda. It is not at all clear to me what groups the archaeogastropods fall into in the 2005 classification. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly accepted better than any other older taxonomy of gastropods and it is also the only way how to classify all families. Wikipedia tries to give information about all taxonomies in articles, however there can be only one preferred taxonomy in a time. And the generally preferred taxonomy of gastropods is this one these days. It will certainly change to more recent one in the future. - Archaeogastropoda is not used in the Bouchet & Rocroi taxonomy at all. There is a category Category:Available gastropod names for such taxa (or for such names). The only way how to compare it with other taxonomies is to check all families step by step, a family-by-family. You are right, we should try to explain taxonomy changes of important taxa in much easier way. --Snek01 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment removed by author)

Limacoid clade

Does Limacoid clade belong to the informal group Sigmurethra? --Snek01 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contents (page 3) of the publication in Malacologia ends with the informal group Sigmurethra and does not specify the Limacoid clade. The Limacoid clade is mentioned on pages 268-271 under the informal group Sigmurethra. But this does not specify that it belongs to Sigmurethra. It could be an unranked clade. A footnote with the Limacoid clade refers to "contents and classification after Hausdorf (1998). For an alternative view see Schileyko (2002) who did not discuss the system proposed by Hausdorf (1998)".

Hausdorf : "Phylogeny of the Limacoidea sensu lato (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora); Journal of Molluscan Studies, 64 (1), p.35-66

Schileyko : 1998-2003 (in progress): Treatise on recent terrestrial pulmonates molluscs, Ruthenica, supplement 2 (published in 11 parts, 1626 pages). JoJan (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made for example an article for family Humboldtianidae. Feel free to edit taxonomy in that family and I will start artilces about other families in Limacoid clade in the same way. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few items and an image to Humboldtianidae. JoJan (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gastropoda subclass: Apogastropoda

Should Apogastropoda be listed as a subclass of Gastropoda? Gastropoda articles claims only four subclasses [1]. Are there five or more? I know nothing about this. I just made the Apogastropoda article because there was high demand for it. Please advise. Thanks.

I have posted this at...
Talk:Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)
Talk:Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Ponder & Lindberg, 1997)
Talk:Gastropoda
--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponder & Lindberg used this name in 1997 for the monophyletic taxon containing Caenogastropoda and Heterobranchia. See his treatment of the Apogastropoda in "Molluscan reasearch 2003 23, p.123-148 : Gastropod phylogeny based on six segments from four genes representing coding or non-coding and mitochondrial or nuclear DNA" - ( a pdf document). However, in the nomenclator of the taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi, the Apogastropoda Salvini-Plawen & Haszprunar, 1987 , mentioned in the Journal of Zoology, London, 211(4):762, is now regarded as a paraphyletic taxon, containing the clade Caenogastropoda and the informal group Allogastroda (basal Heterobranchia). The paraphyletic taxon Apogastropoda should therefore no longer be used in the taxonomy of the Gastropoda. See also "Evolution of gastropod mitochondrial genome arrangements" BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008, 8:61, the authors state in their conclusion : "Four main lineages were identified within gastropods: Caenogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Patellogastropoda, and Heterobranchia. Caenogastropoda and Vetigastropoda are sister taxa, as well as, Patellogastropoda and Heterobranchia. This result rejects the validity of the derived clade Apogastropoda (Caenogastropoda + Heterobranchia)." [2]] ( a pdf document). JoJan (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudibranchia Dexiarchia versus Dexiarchia

There is a mistake on page 262. There is written "Nudibranchia Dexiarchia" but there should be written "Dexiarchia" only.

1) supraspecific names of taxa usually consist of one word only.
2) Schrodl M., Wagele H. & Willan R.C. 2001 Taxonomic Redescription of the Doridoxidae(Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia), an Enigmatic Family of Deep Water Nudibranchs, with Discussion of Basal Nudibranch Phylogeny. Zoologischer Anzeiger - A Journal of Comparative Zoology, volume 240, 83-97. described taxon as Dexiarchia Schrödl, Wägele & Willan, 2001.
3) On other pages, on page 280 and on book cover Bouchet and Rocroi also wrote "Dexiarchia".

--Snek01 (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right. B & R actually stated on p. 262 "Nudibranchia Dexiarchia", relying on Schrödl (2001). But, as you state, Schrödl actually wrote "Dexiarchia". I think it won't be original research if we change "Nudibranchia Dexiarchia" into "Dexiarchia". I'll do the necessary changes. JoJan (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article

Name of the article should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The first thing is to "Use the most easily recognized name".

The title

Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)

is short, easy and compatible with other similar articles: Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Ponder & Lindberg, 1997), Taxonomy of Anopheles, Taxonomy of Betula and othrs. Not very compatible with for example Mammal classification, and others. But still easy.

The article could also follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). Then the article could be named according to the title:

Revision history of Classification and Nomenclator of Gastropod Families

The title "Revision history of Classification and Nomenclator of Gastropod Families (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)" is not correct.

No one title according to the title is neither short nor easy for a reader. Accoding to strict application of this rule then should be article Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Ponder & Lindberg, 1997) named Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs; an analysis using morphological characters.

Even the most important publication in taxonomy is named in its short version Systema Naturae. These works of gastropod taxonomy are also important but it will presumably be upgraded in few years and thus easily recognized title and compatible with other titles is the most important thing for non-specialist reader and for specialist too. --Snek01 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article because the subject of the article was a particular book, not Taxonomy of the gastropoda in general, and it makes sense to use the actual name of the book. If the article's subject were the taxonomy of the gastropoda in general, in which relevant material and books might be discussed, it would be proper to title it Taxonomy of the gastropoda. On the other hand, if "Taxonomy of the gastropoda" is used as a standard short title in the literature, like Systema Naturae, I would have no problem with the prior title, but I didn't get that impression from the article. Ecphora (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Taxonomy of the gastropoda" is not used as a standard short title in the literature. But a short and clearly understandable titles are a standard at wikipedia. This article is not primarilly about the book but about a subject of the book. Thus the first rule in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name has the greatest priority. --Snek01 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you view the article as about the classification system in the book, and not the book itself, that's fine and I will revert the title. However, I will also make this clear in the lead because, as it is written, it appears to be about the book. Ecphora (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clades versus subclades

Although there are some clades named as "subclades" in the book there is no need to put a word "subclade" everywhere. It is there only to easily distinguish classification scheme in the text. For example on the back cover of the book there are only clades instead of clades and subclades. So there should not be written a word "subclade" in taxoboxes because in taxoboxes is classification scheme always clear. Am I right? --Snek01 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to change the wording by B & R. (this might be explained as original research). And was the text on the back cover of the book written by B & R or by somebody else, such as an editor ? Other respected malacologists also use the word "subclade". Just look for example at [3], the site of G. Poppe (download nr. 16 : The New Classification of Gastropods According to Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). And while you're at it, also download nr. 1 NEW TAXONOMIC METHODS IN CONCHOLOGY . Interesting reading. JoJan (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "subclade" has only grammatical meaning (it has similar meaning as words section and subsection, rank and subrank, a French word version and subversion). It have no taxonomical meaning. There is possible to use a word subclade everywhere where is useful to say "a clade within previously mentined clade" and for every clade. It is useful to use words subclade in the article Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). It is not useful to use word subclade in taxoboxes, beacuse it is normally visible hierarchical structure and it is easily visible that every clade withing a the above clade can be called also as subclade. --Snek01 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to put B&R clades into taxoboxes

Wikipedia editors who wish to use this taxonomy in an article taxobox, either when creating a new article or when updating out-of-date taxoboxes in already existing articles, please read the information and instructions in the section about taxoboxes on the WikiProject Gastropods page: [4] Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution. Since any clade can be regarded as a taxon, although not every taxon is a clade, paraphyletic taxa being excluded, simply give an appropriate taxonomic rank to the term. After all, it's a taxobox not a cladobox. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, however we are required to use a reliable source rather than making our own synthesis. Bouchet and Rocroi is currently our source for the framework of the taxonomy we use, and so we have to adhere to their system. Invertzoo (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphyletic -- Polyphyletic

It has caught my attention that there seems to be some confusion regarding these two terms, resulting in misleading comments.

In the 4th paragraph under Context, the phase "discovered to be paraphyletic or polyphyletic " suggests the two terms are synonymous, which they are not. Polyphyletic has to do with having more than one (many) ancestors, that is being derived from more than one source. Taxa and clades alike are invalid if they come from more than one ancestral taxon. Paraphyletic has to do with inclusion, of lack thereof. A paraphyletic taxon contains some, but not all descendents of the most recent common ancestor. It is a very useful concept in taxaonomy which allows for the exclusion of derived forms, thereby restraining the scope of conversation, but is disallowed in pure cladistics. I suspect Bouchet and Roccroi were referring to paraphyletic taxa when they set up their groups and informal groups.

There is nothing to say a clade can't have different branches, each of which a clade of its own. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The class rating of this article

This article was previously labelled as being "A" class, which is considered to be very close to Featured Article in standard. However, it appears to be the case that the proper A-class assessment procedure was not followed when "A" status was first awarded to this article.

The necessary qualifications for "A" class, and a description of the proper process for awarding "A" class, are described here[5].

The article has now been labeled as "B" class. Project Gastropods will attempt to have the article properly assessed to see if it currently qualifies officially for a higher rating, or can rapidly be improved to meet a higher rating standard, but if the article currently cannot qualify as higher than a "B", it will remain as "B" class until it is further improved. Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References?

Currently there is only one reference. Of course the main reference for this article will always be the Bouchet & Rocroi article itself, however it would be very helpful if we could find some reliable commentaries commenting on their paper, and use one or more of those as sources to back up what we say in the article other than just the basic structure. Invertzoo (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another reference. JoJan (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What this article really needs, however, are multiple references that discuss it, that verify its notability, that give evidence of why it (the book) warrants a Wikipedia article. If this book is truly a notable work, then finding multiple instances where it is discussed by others shouldn't be so difficult... Should it? KDS4444^Talk 04:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]