Template:Taxonomy/Chordata is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Taxonomy/Chordata is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As several recent studies have cast doubt on the validity of
Deuterostomia as a clade (eg. [1]), I suggest that the latter be temporarily removed from the claimed chordate phylogeny, and that |parent=Deuterostomia be changed to |parent=Bilateria. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Not done for now: seems like this would shake things up a bit, to include removal of the clade
Deuterostomia is shown as a superphylum doesn't really affect the argument much, as "clade" is a more generic term including these as well as other ranks. Nephrozoa is also contested, and the second sentence in that latter article mentions that both Nephorozoa and Deuterostomia are invalidated by some studies (see Xenambulacraria
for another hypothesis).
Also, I meant "temporary" as in "we don't know for sure yet" - it is likely that the latest studies showing Deuterostomia as invalid will recieve more support as more studies are made on basal bilaterian phylogeny. However, it is also possible that future studies will in fact uphold Deuterostomia as a clade. In any case, the superphyla/clades
Again, this is only my opinion, and I'd be happy if a discussion could be held on this in order to ascertain consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed explanation. And for agreeing that there is enough work ahead to warrant the need to ascertain consensus.
There is clearly some uncertainty over the validity of Deuterostoma, but it is still widely accepted and there is no agreement on the alternative topology and taxonomy. We cannot reflect the ongoing primary research in the taxobox. What we should follow is secondary sources and some form of consensus taxonomy. In my opinion, the most suitable for this is the consensus tree in Giribet & Edgecombe (2020)[1] (see my version of this tree at Giribet_&_Edgecombe_(2020), although I'm open to alternatives. Thus I would retain Deuterostoma in the taxobox and leave discussion of the alternative theories for the text of articles.
P.S. Adding references to the alternative proposals listed above would be useful for future discussion. — Jts1882 | talk 06:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, but willing to amend. As u:Jts1882 points out, we should follow secondary sources, and not the primary research; and the secondary sources don't seem to yet accept dropping Deuterostomia. Are there any secondary sources that have dropped it? - UtherSRG(talk) 14:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ed. put'r there 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)]
Not done for now: seems like this would shake things up a bit, to include removal of the clade ed. put'r there 05:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)]