Talk:Teleostomi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Camrynackley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Swim Bladder or Lungs, which one first?

I read yesterday's on "The Ancestor's Tale" by R. Dawkins that the swim bladder is in fact a modified lung, and not the other way around. Should I correct the page accordingly?

Gufodotto (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This website lays out an argument that lungs came first. Looks like editing the article is a good idea, although it could still use a peer-reviewed reference.

Cephal-odd (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations

Is it the best idea to use a picture of a tuna (a member of the Teleostei) to illustrate the page for Teleostomi? Perhaps pictures of all the different sorts of Teleostomi rather than just one from the group that causes confusion? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolutionist1859 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obsolete/invalid?

Is this the nailed-on consensus this is a dud? We have many articles that still use this in their taxoboxes, but if they click through those they're greeted with this article telling them "yeah, no". Either way, we need additional cites to verify the true range of scientific opinion on this. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This taxon is still occasionally used in neontology to refer to bony fish, with a definition exactly equivalent to Osteichthyes. One can find several hundred Google Scholar hits within the last 4 years, almost all of which using it as a synonym in place of Osteichthyes (which itself has several tens of thousands of hits and is definitely still the more prevalent term). The historic usage of the taxon, a clade containing Acanthodii and Osteichthyes, is no longer supported per recent consensus that acanthodians and sharks are closer to eachother, but the papers providing that conclusion don't explicitly use the word "Teleostomi" thus making them invalid sources for changing the taxobox per those pesky OR policies. The 2019 redescription of Brazilichthys provides the closest thing to a proper literature summary that explicitly disbands Teleostomi, but this source is by no means authoritative (even if the sources it is citing e.g. Zhu, Giles may be) and it alone or even in combination with the aforementioned acanthodian phylogenies are considered insufficient to rule against its use in the taxobox per its continued usage as an Osteichthyes synonym. The main reason(?) this remains in use is that Wikiproject Fishes defaults to the aging higher level taxonomy in the 2016 edition of Fishes of the World, which supported certain acanthodians+osteichthyans and used Teleostomi as it predated most studies that found all acanthodians to be chondrichthyan. There had previously been a push to change the taxobox to no longer use the taxon, but that didn't go through due to sourcing concerns, and the fact it would break almost every higher level bony fish taxobox.

In paleontology there is wide consensus (e.g. the introduction section of this paper and the cited sources for some additional secondary verification. The 2021 edition of the Handbook of Paleoichthyology by Burrow has proven totally unavailable to editors but would prove extremely authoritative in this discussion) that Teleostomi is "a dud". The snag is that acanthodians are badly understood and consensus on their placement has completely switched around in the last 10 years, Teleostomi still sees occasional use in neontology, the exact wording of sources makes a switch difficult to cite, a book that editors have agreed to rely on uses the term, and there are better things for most editors to do than adjust every higher level bony fish taxonomy template, so the clade remains. Should the article itself go into detail about all of this? Should it cite historic authors like Erik Jarvik and R. S. Miles and their proposals? Should this even have an article, or should it be merged into Acanthodii or Osteichthyes? These are all questions that also warrant discussion. Pinging @@Hemiauchenia, who also disagrees with this taxon's continued usage in taxoboxes, and @@Jako96 who tried to initiate a removal of it which failed. Also pinging @@Jts1882 who previously decided there was insufficient consensus to remove the taxon from the taxobox in a discussion this February. See previous proposals and brief discussion on Template talk:Taxonomy/Tetrapoda. Gasmasque (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think retaining Teleostomi is okay as long as that it is overtly and explicitly stated that it is invalid if it's needed to retain the stability of the fish taxonomy tree. Euteleostomi should really be merged with Osteichthyes though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Eueletostomi should merged with Osteichthyes but Teleostomi should be removed from the automated taxobox system as it's invalid. Teleostomi is not even a traditional or "semi-traditional" taxon. Why keep it in the automated taxobox system? It's invalid! Jako96 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not attached to keeping Teleostomi and would be perfectly okay and have no opposition ti it being removed from the taxonomy tree if this is the consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice. The reason I used an exclamation mark when I got angry was because I remembered my Teleostomi "incident". Jako96 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

And there is no way of "overtly and explicitly" stating it. Jako96 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm unclear what could be done to achieve such an effect. Including it in the taxoboxes but then "nope!"ing that in the target article seems somewhere between slow-rolling and outright misleading readers. Unless it's possible to 'asterisk' the TB entry in some manner, Iunno.

But as far as this article is concerned, I'd again suggest additional sources, and a form of words that's careful not to wander down OR or SYNTH routes. i.e. let's not say in editorial voice "it's an invalid taxon" unless multiple reliable sources say so in terms. Can we perhaps say something slightly more cautious like, "if upheld, this phylogeny would make telestomi as defined a junior synonym, or require an amended definition"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The article currently relies solely on Zhu et al. (2013) rather than the large number of subsequent sources that have continued to support an Acanthodii+Chondrichthyes link. I can add some additional sources (including those I provided above) to make the statements more authoritative. I can also add mention of the fact that some sources use Teleostomi to refer to bony fish. Gasmasque (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Those both sound like excellent improvements to me. On the taxobox issue, should we maybe have an RFC on that? Whether here or in some more central location. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)