Template talk:Taxonomy/Libelluloidea
Add topic | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Should Cavilabiata be retained as the parent?
[edit]The automated taxonomy currently gives Cavilabiata as the parent of both Libelluloidea and Cordulegastroidea. Newton et al. (2023) explicitly define Cavilabiata as the clade comprising those two superfamilies.[1] However, Carter et al. (2026) present the current relationships among the dragonfly superfamilies without using Cavilabiata as an intervening rank.[2]
Most other dragonfly superfamilies also have Anisoptera as their direct parent in the automated taxonomy. Would it therefore be clearer and more consistent to change the parent of both Libelluloidea and Cordulegastroidea to Anisoptera, while retaining Cavilabiata in the article prose or phylogeny where appropriate?
I would make the same change to both taxonomy templates so that they remain consistent.
References
- ↑ Newton, Lacie; Tolman, Ethan; Kohli, Manpreet; Ware, Jessica L. (2023). "Evolution of Odonata: genomic insights". Current Opinion in Insect Science. 58: 101073. doi:10.1016/j.cois.2023.101073.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) - ↑ 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.
@Geekgecko: John Tann (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is something I noticed back when I edited the taxonomy, but studies that focus on extant taxa tend to ignore the existence of Cavilabiata, which tends to be exclusively used in studies that also analyze stem-group dragonflies known only from fossils. Given that we should preferably focus on both extant and extinct taxa, I suggest Cavilabiata should be retained (when I'm able, I could create a page for it, including both the extant and extinct taxa), though if a better solution can be found I'm open to it. Geekgecko (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you @Geekgecko, that distinction between classifications concentrating on living taxa and those incorporating fossil stem groups is helpful. Carter et al. (2026) is explicitly a classification of extant Odonata, so its omission of Cavilabiata does not necessarily argue against using the clade in an automated taxonomy that must also accommodate fossil taxa.
- On that basis, I agree that Cavilabiata should be retained as the parent of Libelluloidea and Cordulegastroidea. A Cavilabiata article explaining the clade and its living and extinct members would also make its appearance in the taxobox much clearer to readers. Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind the arrangement. John Tann (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)