Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23e3f251a88a594

Jump to content

Talk:Entognatha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ettrig in topic Ametabolous

Distinction from Insects

[edit]

It can be easily determined from the Hexapod taxonomy that entognaths represent the outgroup to the insects. What factors justify their being excluded from the Insecta as opposed to the first-branching clade within them? I am not an expert, but from the distinguishing characters listed at Insect, I can only guess that by the picture here it appears that they must lack antennae and/or compound eyes? I am reluctant to generalize from the species to the whole group, so can someone who actually knows verify/update the article?Dhicks3 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is an awesome question. I have as of yet seen no explanation of why the Insecta were renamed Hexapoda. There is a hint that the Hexapoda are not a clade (this artcile meantions something about the Collembola, but I haven't found any source), but ti is presented as such; I can only conclude that for the Hexapoda to be a clade it has to include some crustacean grouip which it would be odd to call 'insects'. But I have seen no mention of what that would be.2.80.243.240 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ametabolous

[edit]

Maybe the use of ametabolous here is correct. But the link is definitely not, because it redirects to a subtaxon to Insecta. --Ettrig (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply