Talk:Polydesmida

Classification needs revision

Since Polydesmida is the largest and probably most-studied group of millipedes, with a complicated taxonomy full of suborders, superfamilies, and tribes, I'd like to propose a Classification section be added to show all supra-famiial classification at once, rather than having to navigate through the various suborders individually. This would likely require editing the downstream taxon pages and taxoboxes for taxonomic concordance, so I want to put the word out before shaking things up too much. As far as I can tell, the most complete authoritative classification is currently that of Shear 2011, and I propose that be a the template used, unless more recent revisions are available. (The current sources for many families seem to be online checklists or other non-authoritative sources).

Here's a rough draft of the proposed composition- appropriate links would of course be added, and the authroity names& dates could probably be dropped in the interest of reducing clutter:

Suborder Leptodesmidea Brölemann, 1916

• Superfamily Chelodesmoidea Cook, 1895
  • Family Chelodesmidae Cook, 1895
• Superfamily Platyrhacoidea Pocock, 1895
  • Family Aphelidesmidae Brölemann, 1916
  • Family Platyrhacidae Pocock, 1895
• Superfamily Rhachodesmoidea Carl, 1903
  • Family Rhachodesmidae Carl, 1903
  • Family Tridontomidae Loomis & Hoffman, 1962
• Superfamily Sphaeriodesmoidea Humbert & DeSaussure, 1869
  • Family Campodesmidae Cook, 1896
  • Family Holistophallidae Silvestri, 1909
  • Family Sphaeriodesmidae Humbert & DeSaussure, 1869
• Superfamily Xystodesmoidea Cook, 1895
  • Family Eurymerodesmidae Causey, 1951
  • Family Euryuridae Pocock, 1909
  • Family Gomphodesmidae Cook, 1896
  • Family Oxydesmidae Cook, 1895
  • Family Xystodesmidae Cook, 1895

Suborder Dalodesmidea Hoffman, 1980

• Family Dalodesmidae Cook, 1896
• Family Vaalogonopodidae Verhoeff, 1940

Suborder Strongylosomatidea Brölemann, 1916

• Family Paradoxosomatidae Daday, 1889

Suborder Polydesmidea Pocock, 1887

• Infraorder Oniscodesmoides Simonsen, 1990
  • Superfamily Oniscodesmoidea Simonsen, 1990
    • Family Dorsoporidae Loomis, 1958
    • Family Oniscodesmidae DeSaussure, 1860
  • Superfamily Pyrgodesmoidea Silvestri, 1896
    • Family Ammodesmidae Cook, 1896
    • Family Cyrtodesmidae Cook, 1896
    • Family Pyrgodesmidae Silvestri, 1896
• Infraorder Polydesmoides Pocock, 1887
  • Superfamily Haplodesmoidea Cook, 1895
    • Family Haplodesmidae Cook, 1895
  • Superfamily Opisotretoidea Hoffman, 1980
    • Family Opisotretidae Hoffman, 1980
  • Superfamily Polydesmoidea Leach, 1815
    • Family Cryptodesmidae Karsch, 1880
    • Family Polydesmidae Leach, 181539
  • Superfamily Trichopolydesmoidea Verhoeff 1910
    • Family Fuhrmannodesmidae Brölemann, 1916
    • Family Macrosternodesmidae Brölemann 1916
    • Family Nearctodesmidae Chamberlin & Hoffman, 1958

Animalparty (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I agree, albeit with a few caveats. The fact that taxa have been proposed at subordinate ranks doesn't mean that we always have to include them all. I would also suggest that a template isn't the best method for doing this. Navbox templates are intended to guide readers around a series of (existing) articles; in this case, almost none of the downstream articles exist, making a template less appropriate. I think here, a straightforward list in the article will be more than enough. I also wonder how "Strongylosomatidea" can be the name for a suborder containing the single family Paradoxosomatidae; surely Paradoxosomatidea Daday, 1899 is the appropriate name in that instance (although the ICZN doesn't really apply above the family-group, of course). I would also resist the temptation to remove the authorities; with decent formatting, they actually improve the layout, and are important information from a taxonomic point of view. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Leptodesmidea Brölemann, 1916

• Chelodesmoidea Cook, 1895
  • Chelodesmidae Cook, 1895
• Platyrhacoidea Pocock, 1895
  • Aphelidesmidae Brölemann, 1916
  • Platyrhacidae Pocock, 1895
• Rhachodesmoidea Carl, 1903
  • Rhachodesmidae Carl, 1903
  • Tridontomidae Loomis & Hoffman, 1962
• Sphaeriodesmoidea Humbert & de Saussure, 1869
  • Campodesmidae Cook, 1896
  • Holistophallidae Silvestri, 1909
  • Sphaeriodesmidae Humbert & de Saussure, 1869
• Xystodesmoidea Cook, 1895
  • Eurymerodesmidae Causey, 1951
  • Euryuridae Pocock, 1909
  • Gomphodesmidae Cook, 1896
  • Oxydesmidae Cook, 1895
  • Xystodesmidae Cook, 1895

Dalodesmidea Hoffman, 1980

• Dalodesmidae Cook, 1896
• Vaalogonopodidae Verhoeff, 1940

Strongylosomatidea Brölemann, 1916

• Paradoxosomatidae Daday, 1889

Polydesmidea Pocock, 1887

• Oniscodesmoidea Simonsen, 1990
  • Dorsoporidae Loomis, 1958
  • Oniscodesmidae DeSaussure, 1860
• Pyrgodesmoidea Silvestri, 1896
  • Ammodesmidae Cook, 1896
  • Cyrtodesmidae Cook, 1896
  • Pyrgodesmidae Silvestri, 1896
• Haplodesmoidea Cook, 1895
  • Haplodesmidae Cook, 1895
• Opisotretoidea Hoffman, 1980
  • Opisotretidae Hoffman, 1980
• Polydesmoidea Leach, 1815
  • Cryptodesmidae Karsch, 1880
  • Polydesmidae Leach, 1815
• Trichopolydesmoidea Verhoeff, 1910
  • Fuhrmannodesmidae Brölemann, 1916
  • Macrosternodesmidae Brölemann, 1916
  • Nearctodesmidae Chamberlin & Hoffman, 1958

Thanks for your input, I like the look of that. As for the Strongylosomatidea/Paradoxosomatidea I can't offer any clarity right now. It may have been a mistake in Shear 2011, or there may be validity to it. Animalparty (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As an update, regarding the Strongylosomatidea/Paradoxosomatidea usage: From a 2013 global checklist of Paradoxosomatidae: "Suprafamilial names are not governed by the priority rules of the ICZN. Various permutations have been used by various authors, such as: Strongylosomatidea Brölemann 1916, Paradoxosomatidea Hoffman, 1967 or Paradoxosomatidea Daday, 1889. Published catalogs may stabilize the nomenclature". So I guess it's an open issue. From the same source, it's also interesting to note that the nominal genus of the family, Paradoxosoma Daday, 1889, is no longer a valid name (apparently synonymized with Stosatea Gray, 1843), while Strongylosoma Brandt, 1833 is valid. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)