Talk:Chordate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chordate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Animals High‑importance

Chordate 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

High

This article has been rated as High-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

Cladogram

The cladogram under phylogeny is so full of problems that it should be edited or removed: Condrychthyes is missing! Sarcopterygii appears to be a synonym of Tetrapods! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabe Lemag (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is could be improved, but I oppose removal. The Chondrichthyes could be included; the Sarcopterygii gave rise to the tetrapods (plus a few odd fish such as the coelacanths and lung-fish) and this is consistent with the cladogram. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rank of Tetrapoda and Sarcopterygii

This sentence doesn't make sense:

Benton included the Superclass Tetrapoda in the Subclass Sarcopterygii

You can't have a superclass within a subclass - should it be the other way round? 31.50.203.97 (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Benton's rank usage is rather ideoscncratic. He can use the same rank several times in a taxonomic heirarchy and he does use higher ranks for groups like Tetrapoda and Aves. If you look at the Appendix in the 4th edition of his Vertebrate Palaeontology, you can see on p436 that he does list Superclass Tetrapoda under Subclass Sarcopterygii. The online classification for the third edition has the same, but I can't find it online now. Below is the listing:

Subclass Sarcopterygii
- Order Dipnoi
- Infraclass Crossopterygii
  - †Order Porolepiformes
  - Superorder unnamed
    - †Order Onychodontida
    - Order Actinistia
- Infraclass Tetrapodomorpha
  - †Order Rhizodontida
  - Superorder Osteolepidida
    - †Order Osteolepiformes
    - †Family Tristichopteridae
    - †Order Panderichthyida
    - Superclass Tetrapoda

I know it is confusing, but that is correctly quoting the source. It might be better to omit his ranks and just state that Tetrapoda are placed within Sarcopterygii.

An example of repeating the same rank occurs within Reptilia. He uses Division Archosauriformes under Infraclass Archosauromorpha and later uses Division Mesoeucrocodylia under Order Crocodylia and Division Coelurosauria under Infraorder Tetanurae. Division is used at three different levels within the same taxonomic hierarchy. Jts1882 | talk 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalochordata: (Acrania) or (Acraniata) or nix the lot?

In the classification section, Cephalochordata is listed with Acraniata in brackets behind it. Haeckel's 1866 Acrania is considered synonymous with Cephalochordata according to its page (though it is also shown on a specific internal branch of the tree of that page, which is a problem all of its own), but I am not sure of the taxonomic history of Acraniata. The Acraniata page is a redirect to Invertebrate, whereas Acrania page is for the developmental defect by the same name (not linked here to spare the reader some pretty graphic imagery). There seems to be some chaos here that needs to be straightened out. Can we remove the piece in brackets, as Cephalochordata is simply the most accepted name right now? Or does it have some greater historical significance of which I am unaware? Dr Mark D. Scherz 08:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Acraniata is a historic group of organisms without a distinct cranium. As such it would include Cephalochordata, Hemichordata and Urochordata, which makes it paraphyletic with respect to Craniata. I don't think it should be used as a synonym of Cephalochordata. — Jts1882 | talk 09:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology does list "Cephalochordata (Acraniata)" (p433) and is the source cited for the listing. Nelson's Fishes of the World has a section "Subphylum Cephalochordata (Acrania, in part)" (p16). — Jts1882 | talk 09:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are Craniata and Vertebrata are Synonymous?

Are Craniata and Vertebrata are synonymous? If yes, Craniata should be removed from the text and Vertebrata should be used. If no, then why is Craniata not in the taxobox? Jako96 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of two invertebrate chordates (diagrams)

The labeling of these diagrams is a god-awful mess. I like the idea of using the same numbers for corresponding things, but: Some numbers have no explanation. Some explained numbers do not appear in any of the three diagrams. A few explained numbers point to the wrong thing, for example, 12 heart and 13 stomach. How could such a mess get past the editors? Eall Ân Ûle (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I took the caption from the original file that seems accurate. I have to wikilink stuff again. cyclopia ^speak! 10:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]