Talk:Dinocaridida

	Paleontology portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't the taxobox reflect family-level children before genera? Aderksen (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearification needed[edit]

Now what is the currently accepted name: dinocarida od dinocaridida? I think the latter. However, The box mentiones Class: Dinocarida Collins, 1996. In addition, the articles described the contained genera should refer to dinocaridida rather to dinocarida.

"Collins (1996) included in his class Dinocaridida (misspelt Dinocarida) the anomalocaridids and their kin, including animals such as Opabinia and Kerygmachela." See Arthropod Origins by J. Bergström and Hou - 2003

==> I'll correct this. Ernsts (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The double id is correct - see the footnote at Anomalocaridid. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin for this confirmation. I've adapted the textboxes of all genera listed in the textbox here, but no longer included protostomia, panarthropoda, and lobopodia so far - clearification is needed. Please refer to Talk:Lobopodia --Ernsts (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time range extension[edit]

The range cited in the taxobox is inconsistent with other dinocarid sub-taxa, which include the Devonian Schinderhannes bartelsi from Hunsrück Slate in this group (eg Radiodonta and Anomalocaridid). Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are arthropods[edit]

Dinocarida = Arthropoda--Зелев Андрей (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tension, verging on inconsistency, between the text and the TaxBox of this article. The text says that Dinocaridida "appears to be stem-group to arthropods" and the TaxBox shows Dinocaridida as being included within "Euarthropoda." As I understand the terms, current usage of Euarthropoda is synonymous with Arthropoda, and is defined in part by the presence of jointed appendages. Thus, the TaxBox implies that Dinocaridida have jointed appendages, which I think is not the case. The text, in contrast, refers to Dinacaridida as appearing to be "stem-group to arthropods." The term "stem-group means that it is excluded from the crown-group, but included within the pan-group. Thus, to be stem-group to arthropods means to NOT be a true arthropod (or euarthropod), but merely to be within the pan-group of arthropods (i.e., Panarthropoda) that contains other extant species that are also outside of the arthropod crown group.

I would amend both the text and the TaxBox. I would delete "Euarthropoda"from the TaxBox. I would also amend the text to substitute the stronger "is within the stem-group to arthropods" for the weaker "appears to be stem-group to arthropods."

I will wait at least 30 days before making these changes, so as to allow for other input and reaction.Ray Glock-Grueneich (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]