Talk:Ontonychophora

	Paleontology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animals Low‑importance

Ontonychophora is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Contradiction as to the scope of the article?

In its current shape, the article asserts that Ontonychophora is an extinct order of onychophorans consisting of organisms with simple lobopods that lack terminal feet.

However, the article journal used as the only citation, which coined the order Ontonychophora, says the exact opposite in its abstract: ...the order Ontonychophora n.nom. for extant onychophorans possessing legs with a differentiated "foot" portion....

What should we do? The article's current scope is the exact opposite of how the term is defined in (Poinar, 2000). Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Hi! Checking the full article for myself, it turns out the abstract is in error: in the actual text of the article, Euonychophora was intended for all onychophorans with a "well-defined foot" with claws (including all extant ones), and Ontonychophora for those without. However, Grimaldi et al. (2002) suggests that the lack of feet or claws in the members of the latter could be preservation artifacts, putting into question the validity of Ontonychophora as a taxon. The order is not widely recognised in later scientific literature for Onychophora anyway as it turns out. I have now turned this into a redirect of Onychophora following discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]