Talk:Amphipoda

body segmentation

Thorax has 8(!) segments, of which the first is fused with the head (cephalon). Fot that reason, the figure is not labeled correctly...should be thorax segment II - VIII! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.30.71.170 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

'Supergiant' amphipods

Apparently scientists have just found 'Supergiant' amphipods 28 cm in size off New Zealand. I don't have the knowledge of the subject I feel is required to update the page, so I thought I should leave a note and a link to the article here. 'Supergiant' amphipods found in NZ waters (AAP, SBS, 3 Feb 2012) --TenguTech(Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It says in the begining of the article that "Amphipods range in size from 1 to 340 millimetres". But further down in the article the largest recorded size is 28 cm. Is there any source for the 34 cm claim? 212.85.89.60 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Identification statements

"Amphipods are difficult to identify, due to their typically small size, and the fact that they must be dissected. As a result, ecological studies and environmental surveys often lump all amphipods together."

In my work I identify marine benthic macroinvertebrates, including amphipods. The blanket statement about needing to dissect them is not true. I may need to dissect them now and again, but in terms of pulling off a structure to mount it on a slide to examine under a compound scope, not to look internally. The second sentence I would say is fairly true, only because a) the person IDing them is not trained, or b) identification down to species isn't necessary for the study. I'm going to change it to "they sometimes require dissection," and expand on the reason for difficulty of identification. Esoxid^t•contribs 21:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Compensatory feeding feedback

Overall great job on addition to this article, I was interested by the topic of compensatory feeding, clearly a great evolutionary adaptation. I think you have a great summary of the trait in general and why it is important for evolution, but you could go into more detail about how it evolved, if that information is provided in other articles. I was also wondering what kind of foods are more nutritious that the amphipods with the compensatory feeding trait might not choose over low quality food. The majority of my edits were very minor like word choice and grammar, as well as a couple incidents of changing the structure and order of sentences to make the statement more clear. Overall, I could not find many sentences that needed improving at all! The second paragraph in foraging behavior might need a little more attention. I think the behavior is interesting as the amphipods that can detect these compounds in seaweed, but what are the evolutionary implications? Does this save them from eating something harmful, the seaweed, or is it just an interesting foraging behavior? Does it help or hinder the amphipods? Otherwise, I think you did a good job explaining why compensatory feeding is important to evolution.

Anonymous4715 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

68.188.103.17 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Micruropidae?

unresolved seems to be the family Micruropidae Kamaltynov, 1999. Is it valid?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)