Talk:Gastropoda

Classification

I hope the classification is reasonable. I had to cobble it together from the web, not being intimately familiar with gastropod classification. There seems to be three radically different classification schemes out there for the gastropods, and I had to choose one. Hope I got it reasonably right. jaknouse 02:50 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Could not link to Gastropoda

I was preparing a page on the family Barleeidae, order Neotaenioglossa, when I saw that I could not make a link to Gastropoda.

I know, the classification of Gastropoda is rather confused. But I think a reworking of this page is in order.

I am loath to interfere with your work. There I want to leave it up to you.

Take a look at the website : University of Michigan and you will see that things are looking there quite different from this page at Wikipedia.

There is also another classification going on. I think this may be even the newest classification.

See following website :

[1] [2]

The author of these last website can be reached by email on :

mkosnik+gbrdb@alumni.uchicago.edu

Perhaps he can bring a bit of order in this confusion.

JoJan 19:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Since I got no response, I have tried to put some order in the taxonomy JoJan 21:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Geological history

Dlloyd 09:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some of this text was originaly written and published by me on the Web back in 1998.

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Number of species

What is this sentence trying to say? Are there 60-75k species or over 100k, or what? Horatio 17:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"The gastropods, or univalves, are the largest and most successful class of mollusks, with 60,000-75,000 species, and second largest class of animals, with over 100,000 species, comprising the snails and slugs as well as a vast number of marine and freshwater species."

It should say 60-75k (recent) species. There are about 100k known extant species of molluscs as a whole, which makes molluscs the second largest phylum (not class) of animals, in terms of recorded species (Arthropods being the largest). I've corrected the page accordingly M Alan Kazlev 03:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

could we have an article on snail slime?

New taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi (2005)

I took the plunge and made an article on this new taxonomy down to the level of family, placed temporarily on my user page User:JoJan/Taxonomy. This is an umbellished article without much explanation and without synonyms or author names. If necessary, these data can be added into the articles about the taxa.

I invite every collaborator of the gastropod project to look at it closely. Even at first sight, the differences with the taxonomy of Ponder & Lindberg (1997) are considerable. This new taxonomy has tried to reconcile the recent advances by using unranked monophyletic clades for taxa above the rank of superfamily (replacing the ranks suborder, order, superorder and subclass), while using the traditional Linnaean approach for all taxa below the rank of superfamily. Whenever monophyly has not been tested or is known to be paraphyletic or polyphyletic, the term "group" or "informal group" has been used.

This poses a big problem for all our existing articles and taxoboxes. Between class and superfamily there are no other ranks left in the new hierarchy except clades or "informal groups". I wonder how we are to deal with this.

After some considering, I propose to leave the taxoboxes as they are, except when a name has become invalid, e.g. Pseudothecosomata, a suborder that has become the superfamily Cymbulioidea. I haven't moved this article yet to the new name Cymbulioidea until we have reached some agreement. And I suppose there will be numerous other cases to be dealt with.

Furthermore, I propose to put the taxonomy of Ponder & Lindberg from its place in the article Gastropoda into its own article Taxonomy of the Gastropoda - Ponder & Lindberg (1997) (unless someone proposes a better name) and leave in the article Gastropoda under the header "taxonomy" a link and some explanation. The same goes for the new taxonomy : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda - Bouchet & Rocroi (2005) and again leave a link and some explanation in the article Gastropoda. JoJan (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Me again. We will have to see how the malacological community receives this taxonomy and what the upcoming Ponder and Lindberg 2008 paper ends up looking like. But if this kind of system does win out in the end and stabilizes, I assume we will just have to redo the basic taxobox with slots for clades and informal group, in between rankings for class and superfamily. Invertzoo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a caption name "Proposed classification". There should be explained the term "proposed". Or there can be caption name only "Classification" but there should be explained the classification scheme. I can suggest this characteristics: "The classification below follows Linnaean taxonomy with taxonomical corrections according (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)." Is it approximately right? --Snek01 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given some explanation about the uses of the older and the new taxonomy. JoJan (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

sleepy snails?

I heard they can sleep for thirteen years. Is this true? 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A little cleanup?

Some parts of this article are worded pretty poorly, with dubious grammar. Could someone a bit more snail-ly knowledgeable than I perform a little cleanup? the infamous rmx (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)