Template talk:Taxonomy/Araneae
 | Template:Taxonomy/Araneae is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.
|
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2023
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parent should be changed to Tetrapulmonata. Tetrapulmonata has been well supported for many years, so this should be the parent used. There are other more narrow clades that could be used (see [1], but they're relatively new, so I can understand if somebody didn't want to change the parent to those. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- To editor Hemiauchenia: see nothing discussed at WT:TREE. This page should be edited only if there is consensus to do so. Has it been discussed elsewhere? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a contentious edit req, you can make a post at WT:TOL, but I doubt anyone would oppose it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Posted – see WT:TREE#Tetrapulmonata. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, this was my first Wikipedia task of the day. Yesterday I noticed that the Tetrapulmonata taxonomy template is only used by extinct taxa and that the four extant orders didn't use it. But I've tried to be strict in only making changes to taxonomy templates when I can add a reliable taxonomy source, preferably one listing a taxonomy, rather than just showing the name in the tree. I agree this in non-controversial as it's just about the only strongly supported supraordinal groups in Arachnida. Anyone know of any recent phylogenetic studies? — Jts1882 | talk 08:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've changed the taxonomy templates for four extant orders (Araneae, Amblypygi, Thelyphonida, Schizomida) to Tetrapulmonata citing Gardland & Russell (2014).[1] I'd prefer a new taxonomy source, but this change is not controversial.
- @Hemiauchenia: I've noticed that you changed the parent of {{Taxonomy/Araneida}} to Tetrapulmonata (instead of Araneae). Why? You've also changed suborder Chimerarachnida to make Araneida the parent, which causes a taxonomy template error (as suborder subordinate to suborder). Your edits at Araneida have left some citation errors on the page. I can help sort this out if you explain what you are trying to do. — Jts1882 | talk 08:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Now I understand. The proposal from Wunderlich (2019) is that Araneida would be the order and it would have two suborders Chimerarachnida and Araneae. This seems a major change, for such a well-known and a long-standing order to be demoted a rank. I wonder how widely this will be accepted. It is also a major change to make on Wikipedia, as all mentions of the order would have to be changed and there must be hundreds (possibly thousands) of spider articles. We don't want the taxobox and text to differ. An alternative is not to rank Araneida and set Chimerarachnida and Araneae as children.
- I've changed Araneida to be an unranked clade. I had no idea about the rank implications, my apologies. Modern taxonomists generally don't care about ranks, but even still I don't think downranking Araneae to a suborder is likely to be widely accepted by the majority of taxonomists, though Araneida still has utility as a clade name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think you were both correct with at the time the edits were made. Peter coxhead was correct in creating the template with Araneida as a suborder of Araneae using the Wunderlich (2015) citation (via Dunlop et al, 2017). The linked pdf is no longer available, but newer versions of the fossil taxa checklist (Dunlop et al, 2023; on WSC) carry the note
Wunderlich (2015b) suggested that Uraraneida should be treated as suborder of Araneae, alongside an Araneida group for all true spiders.
. The book Winderlich (2015) has that arrangement in schemes on pages 43 and 44. However, Wunderlich (2019, What is a spider?) switches things around with the proposal that Araneida is the order and Araneae the suborder. When you correctly made the changes following the new arrangement it caused a conflict. Switching the hierarchy like that was bound to cause confusion. — Jts1882 | talk 08:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think you were both correct with at the time the edits were made. Peter coxhead was correct in creating the template with Araneida as a suborder of Araneae using the Wunderlich (2015) citation (via Dunlop et al, 2017). The linked pdf is no longer available, but newer versions of the fossil taxa checklist (Dunlop et al, 2023; on WSC) carry the note
- I've changed Araneida to be an unranked clade. I had no idea about the rank implications, my apologies. Modern taxonomists generally don't care about ranks, but even still I don't think downranking Araneae to a suborder is likely to be widely accepted by the majority of taxonomists, though Araneida still has utility as a clade name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Now I understand. The proposal from Wunderlich (2019) is that Araneida would be the order and it would have two suborders Chimerarachnida and Araneae. This seems a major change, for such a well-known and a long-standing order to be demoted a rank. I wonder how widely this will be accepted. It is also a major change to make on Wikipedia, as all mentions of the order would have to be changed and there must be hundreds (possibly thousands) of spider articles. We don't want the taxobox and text to differ. An alternative is not to rank Araneida and set Chimerarachnida and Araneae as children.
- Coincidentally, this was my first Wikipedia task of the day. Yesterday I noticed that the Tetrapulmonata taxonomy template is only used by extinct taxa and that the four extant orders didn't use it. But I've tried to be strict in only making changes to taxonomy templates when I can add a reliable taxonomy source, preferably one listing a taxonomy, rather than just showing the name in the tree. I agree this in non-controversial as it's just about the only strongly supported supraordinal groups in Arachnida. Anyone know of any recent phylogenetic studies? — Jts1882 | talk 08:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a contentious edit req, you can make a post at WT:TOL, but I doubt anyone would oppose it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Dunlop has a review at doi:10.13156/arac.2022.19.sp1.182. There's a relatively recent molecular phylogenetic study of arthropod phylogeny at doi:10.1177/1176934320903735. As ever, since the molecular phylogeny only considers extant species, the two differ. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Garwood, Russell J.; Dunlop, Jason (2014). "Three-dimensional reconstruction and the phylogeny of extinct chelicerate orders". PeerJ. 2: e641. doi:10.7717/peerj.641. PMC 4232842. PMID 25405073.