Talk:Machilidae

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Machilidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813185823/http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/oddbugs/archaeo.htm to http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/oddbugs/archaeo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Extinction of Praemachilis

According to , the genus is extinct. @Noears6@Dyanega

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 13:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly there is a serious mess here, since there are photographs of live specimens identified as belonging to this genus. None of the references listed in the Praemachilis article in Wikipedia are actually available online, or if they are, they say nothing at all about the genus. It looks like the genus, when Silvestri named it, contained living species, but a lot of the originally included species are now in other genera, so it's hard to say what species are left in Praemachilis, and whether they are fossils or not. Basically, without access to the primary literature, Googling gets you nowhere. When none of the authoritative sources are online, it's going to take serious research to figure out the status of this genus. Dyanega (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The original description is here. It contains four species, all treated as extant: aurea, excelsior, italica, and meticulosa. The type species is excelsior, a living species described from Portici, Italy. Someone, somewhere, evidently screwed things up by claiming that these species were fossils. One source here also incorrectly states that the genus is monotypic, but it was not. However, the other 3 original species are now in other genera. As far as I can see, the confusion is exacerbated by the entry in GBIF for Praemachilis Carpenter, 1907, which is nonsense; Carpenter did not describe a new genus, he described a new species which he placed into Silvestri's genus, explicitly - here.

Therefore, the genus Praemachilis is an extant taxon, not a fossil taxon. Sources saying otherwise are rubbish and should not be cited. What I cannot tell you is how many species there are in the genus other than excelsior, as none of the catalogs or checklists seem to be online. Dyanega (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess you are right. Thank you for the informations!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 04:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)