Talk:Dragonfly

Proposal to treat Anisoptera as a suborder and remove Epiprocta from the current taxonomic hierarchy

Recent classifications used by Dijkstra et al. (2013), Carter et al. (2026), and the World Odonata List treat Anisoptera as a suborder of Odonata rather than as an infraorder within Epiprocta. I propose updating the Anisoptera and Epiprocta articles and the associated automated-taxobox taxonomy templates accordingly. The Epiprocta article would be retained to explain that alternative classification and its taxonomic history, but Epiprocta would no longer form part of the principal hierarchy used by the taxoboxes.

Sources

• Dijkstra, Klaas-Douwe B.; Bechly, Günter; Bybee, Seth M.; Dow, Rory A.; Dumont, Henri J.; Fleck, Günther; Garrison, Rosser W.; Hämäläinen, Matti; Kalkman, Vincent J.; Karube, Haruki; May, Michael L.; Orr, Albert G.; Paulson, Dennis R.; Rehn, Andrew C.; Theischinger, Günther (2013). "The classification and diversity of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata). In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness (Addenda 2013)". Zootaxa. 3703 (1): 36–45. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3703.1.9. ISSN 1175-5334.
• Carter, Payton; Goodman, Aaron; Abbott, John; Bota Sierra, Cornelio; Bybee, Seth M.; Dow, Rory A.; Fomekong Lontchi, Judicael; Frandsen, Paul B.; Gonzalez Mozo, Laura; Guralnick, Rob; Hämäläinen, Matti; Joshi, Shantanu; Kohli, Manpreet K.; Lupiyaningdyah, Pungki; Montana, Katherine O.; Newton, Lacie; Onsongo, Violet; Orr, Albert G.; Pinto, Ângelo Parise; Sanchez-Herrera, Melissa; Sutherland, Laura N.; Theischinger, Gunther; Ware, Jessica L.; Zhang, Haomiao; Kalkman, Vincent J. (2026). "The classification and diversity of extant dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata)". International Journal of Odonatology. 29: 95–124. doi:10.48156/1388.2026.1917385.
• Paulson, D.; Schorr, M.; Abbott, J.; Bota-Sierra, C.; Deliry, C.; Dijkstra, K.-D.; Lozano, F. "World Odonata List". OdonataCentral. University of Alabama. Retrieved 1 September 2026.

Comments are invited before these interconnected changes are made.

John Tann (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

For background, the same general question was discussed at Talk:Odonata in 2018–2019. One concern raised there was the treatment of fossil taxa; Carter et al. (2026) now provides a classification that includes them. John Tann (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, plainly necessary. We should also update the phylogenetic trees (and the associated texts) in Dragonfly and related articles using Carter 2026. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support new classifcation. My reservation before was what to do with fossil taxa. We have a new classification addresses that concern and has been accepted by WOL, meeting primary and secondary source requirements. A couple of the editors on WOL are also authors on the Carter et al 2026 but the principals seem independent. An up to date global database can't be completely independent of those doing the taxonomic and phylogenetic work. This update is needed.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm a little confused actually, Carter et al. (2026) doesn't actually include fossil taxa in its classification at all? So how has this actually resolved their treatment? If anything the last paragraph, even last sentence, of the paper before the references makes clear this hasn't been done yet, but the authors (or odonatologists generally) intend to fix that in future:

"With the classification of extant odonates probably becoming resolved in the next few years, the next endeavor for odonate classification will be reconciling and as far as possible integrating our knowledge of extant and fossil odonates." (emphasis mine)

Until that is actually done, as far as I'm aware paleo-odonatologists are still essentially following Bechly's old classification from the 1990s-2000s with modifications. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; you are correct. I had interpreted Carter et al. (2026) too broadly. The paper explicitly presents a classification of extant Odonata and does not provide an integrated classification of living and fossil taxa. John Tann (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Following the concern raised by Monster Iestyn, I suggest narrowing and clarifying the proposal.

There does not yet appear to be a single modern classification integrating all living and fossil Odonata. Carter et al. (2026) explicitly addresses extant taxa, while stating that reconciliation of the extant and fossil classifications remains future work.

I therefore propose that Wikipedia use the following approach:

• The principal classification of living Odonata should follow the World Odonata List and Carter et al. (2026), recognising Zygoptera, Anisozygoptera and Anisoptera as suborders.
• Fossils securely assigned to one of those groups should remain within it.
• Other fossil taxa should be treated according to the relevant palaeontological literature and should not be reassigned solely on the basis of Carter et al.
• Epiprocta should be retained as an article explaining the alternative grouping and its role in fossil-inclusive classifications, rather than being presented as the sole current classification.
• Changes to the automated-taxobox hierarchy should not be made until the fossil taxa currently descending from Epiprocta have been audited.

This would allow Wikipedia to adopt the current WOL classification for living Odonata without implying that the unresolved fossil classification has also been settled. John Tann (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Given the unsurprising instability of the relationships of the fossil taxa (no molecular phylogeny), it might be best to have the account of Fossil Odonata in a separate (subsidiary) article, and keep the article here simple with just a brief section and "main" link to summarize the fossil situation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

If such an article is made, if it helps, a while back I coded up some cladograms in my userspace for Odonata and Odonatoptera more widely based on Bechly's Odonata classification website (User:Monster Iestyn/Insect systematics#Odonata phylogeny), though this won't include numerous changes made in papers since 2007 (and even some papers from the 2000s before then, compare for instance the cladograms at Odonatoptera). Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Feel free; the article doesn't have to be a perfect GA springing fully-formed from the head of Zeus like a ready-grown-up Hercules! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. There have been no objections to the revised approach outlined above, so I will begin by auditing the automated-taxobox hierarchy and identifying any fossil taxa currently descending from Epiprocta. I will limit the proposed changes to the classification framework for living taxa, leaving the treatment of fossils and the phylogenetic trees for others. John Tann (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)