Talk:Lobopodia

Untitled

I thought "Phylum" Lobopodia contained those creatures that are the ancestors of both onychophores and tardigrades, essentially, all of the Cambrian onychophores.--Mr Fink 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Should this picture be removed? It contains a modern day velvet worm, which is a descendant, but is not actually the item in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.152.131 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since there is no caption to indicate that it is a velvet worm and not a lobopod, it should be removed. Any infobox picture should be of the subject, such as a fossil or artistic depiction. It might be worth having the picture elsewhere in the article with a caption clearly indicating that modern velvet worms resemble what lobopods possible looked like in life. I will make the change now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent classification

• Superdomain: Biota
  • Domain: Eukaryota
    • • Kingdom: Animalia
        • Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
          • Branch: Bilateria
            • Grade: Protostomia
              • Infrakingdom: Ecdysozoa
                • Superphylum: Panarthropoda
                  • Phylum: Onychophora
                    • Class: Xenusia † (once Phylum Lobopodia)
                    • Class: Euonychophora

Clearification needed

The group Lobopodia has been introduced as a phylum by Robert Evans Snodgrass in 1938 (see Systema Naturae 2000 / Classification and [http://www.life.umd.edu/entm/shultzlab/snodgrass/transcript03b.pdf The Snodgrass Tapes - Evolution of the Arthropods by R. E. Snodgrass).

Due to Encyclopedia Brittannica this is a taxon including Onychophora and Tardigrada. The WP article here mentiones the extinct taxa †Dinocarida and †Xenusia in adition.

1st problem: Panarthropoda Nielsen, 1997 lists Lobopodia as a contained taxon, but the Lobopodia article refers to this group in hidden text as a paraphyletic group.

2nd problem: The Lobopodia article does not mention Panarthropoda as a taxon that includes Lobopodia (below superphylum Ecdysozoa).

3rd problem: Panarthropoda mentiones the following as contained phyla: Arthropoda, Onychophora, Tardigrada, and Lobopodia†. But Onychophora and Tardigrada are contained in Lobopodia

4th problem: If Onychophora and Tardigrada are contained in Lobopodia, this group cannot be extinct.

5th problem: If Lobopodia is a paraphyletic group (not a phylum), then which taxon is/taxa are missing?

6th problem: Should taxon Protostomia be included as it had originally been in the taxboxes for some anomalocaridids. But what is the suprephylum then: Protostomia or Ecdysozoa?

Bergström & Hou Arthropod origins in Bulletin Geosciences, Vol. 78, No. 4 323-334, 2003 have a new view of protosomia/deuterostomia including that lancelets are oriented upside-down "in our textbooks" (p. 230). How commonly is this vew accepted nowadays? I. e. is the group 'deuterostomia' obsolete at all?

Besides the fact that exact clades are under discussion, WP should give a consistent view on the currently most probable tree.

Who is able to clearify this? Thanks in advance Ernsts (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bergström & Hou seem to be saying (in fact, quoting) that Deuterostomes are rotated Protostomes. But this is what everybody always said, so I don't see what the significance is. Besides, they're not at all saying Deuterostomes are not monophyletic. It has long been the consensus that Deuterostomes are a natural grouping, to be nested somewhere within the Protostomes. The single unusual thing that Bergström & Hou posit is that the placement of Deuterostomes may be close to that of the Arthropods, but even that isn't new at all, though the traditional way to look at it is to see Deuterostomes as having split much earlier.

As to this article... Lobopodia has been hijacked to insert all kinds of early fauna that doesn't fit anywhere, the Opabiniae, the Anomalocarides, even Hallucigenia (which has already been reasonably placed in the Onychophora!). It's pretty much quackery, but that's what passes for science nowadays. You can build all the cladograms you want, since you can have trait Z be the reversal of trait A, you just have to be imaginative, and some people take their imagination for evidence.2.80.238.137 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

208.103.250.200 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was the original content all deleted? Even if you disagreed with it/it was incorrect, deleting the entire page and eliminating a lot of good information (i.e. morphology, etc.) was uncalled for, especially if you are unwilling to replace it with "correct" info.

Fossil Range Confusion

Shouldn't we put the fossil range as from Early Cambrian to Present?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence construction

In the description of Hallucigenia have 'This second reconstruction also exchanged the front and rear ends of the creature, which further investigation showed to be erroneous' - was there a third reconstruction or should it be '... investigation had been shown...'

And in Fossils of the Burgess Shale have 'Another current view is that Hallucigenia was an armored lobopod' - can the two articles be synchronised. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check corrections

@Junnn11: I tried to correct some of your English. Can you check it? Click on this to see my changes. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your corrections. Junnn11 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does Xenusia redirect to Lobopodia?

Question given above. It’s not monotypic, it’s different from Lobopodia as a whole, and it still technically exists (and even that doesn’t stop pages from existing, see Uniramia). I see no reason for a redirect.

Also, as Mlvluu pointed out, Hallucishaniids being redirected to Hallucigeniidae due to being a “monotypic taxon” is rubbish: it literally combines two families (Hallucigeniidae and Luolishaniidae) so therefore it can’t be monotypic. Its name is even a combination of the two families’ names! IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@IC1101-Capinatator Unfortunately, many taxon pages have been already created as redirects by old users who, instead of writing actual articles, simply redirected them to their parent taxon despite not being a synonym or the only child taxon. It's a big issue that's prevalent in Amoebozoa children taxa, for example. There is no good reason to do this, but my guess is it was perpetrated by editors who were allergic to red links. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)