22 Mar

Category talk:Trilobita

← Older revision
Revision as of 15:58, 22 March 2013
Line 2:
Line 2:

* ''Mareda'' Kobayashi, 1942 is not an order, but a genus, and on top of that, it is a jr. homonym of ''Mareda'' Walker, 1855 that was proposed for a genus of moths family Limacodidae. As new name has been proposed ''Suluderella'' Özdikmen, 2006 (Saukiidae). The Paleobiological Database posts as subtaxa all taxa that have not been assigned to other subtaxa, and combined with the suffix ''-da'', hence the confusion.

* ''Mareda'' Kobayashi, 1942 is not an order, but a genus, and on top of that, it is a jr. homonym of ''Mareda'' Walker, 1855 that was proposed for a genus of moths family Limacodidae. As new name has been proposed ''Suluderella'' Özdikmen, 2006 (Saukiidae). The Paleobiological Database posts as subtaxa all taxa that have not been assigned to other subtaxa, and combined with the suffix ''-da'', hence the confusion.

* Although '''Naraoiida''' is used as a synonym for '''Nektaspida''', the latter is much more commonly used, particularly in recent scientific literature, see: Budd, G. E. (1999). "A nektaspid arthropod from the Early Cambrian Sirius Passet fauna, with a description of retrodeformation based on functional morphology". Palaeontology 42: 99. doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00064, and Budd, G. E.; Jensen, S. (2000). "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 75 (2): 253–95. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00046.x

* Although '''Naraoiida''' is used as a synonym for '''Nektaspida''', the latter is much more commonly used, particularly in recent scientific literature, see: Budd, G. E. (1999). "A nektaspid arthropod from the Early Cambrian Sirius Passet fauna, with a description of retrodeformation based on functional morphology". Palaeontology 42: 99. doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00064, and Budd, G. E.; Jensen, S. (2000). "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 75 (2): 253–95. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00046.x
−
* The ''communis opinio'' still seems to be that all trilobites primitively without facial sutures as the suborder '''Olenellina''', although cladistic considerations led Lieberman (2002) to dwell on the thought to raise the group consisting of the '''Olenelloidea''', '''Judomioidea''' and '''Nevadioidea''' to the order '''Olenellina''', and retaining the sutureless '''Fallotaspidoidea''' in the otherwise sutured '''Redlichiida'''. He did not propose it in his taxonomy however.
+
* The ''communis opinio'' still seems to be that all trilobites primitively without facial sutures should be assigned to the suborder '''Olenellina''', although cladistic considerations led Lieberman (2002) to dwell on the thought to raise the group consisting of the '''Olenelloidea''', '''Judomioidea''' and '''Nevadioidea''' to the order '''Olenellina''', and retaining the sutureless '''Fallotaspidoidea''' in the otherwise sutured '''Redlichiida'''. He did not propose it in his taxonomy however.

-- [[User:Dwergenpaartje|Dwergenpaartje]] ([[User talk:Dwergenpaartje|talk]]) 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

-- [[User:Dwergenpaartje|Dwergenpaartje]] ([[User talk:Dwergenpaartje|talk]]) 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Trilobita&diff=93094016&oldid=93078099