Talk:Araneomorphae
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Stub
[edit]This article has been listed as a stub. Because of the nature of the category, the most informative content that can be provided is a list of the members of this group. I will add a drawing of the distinguishing feature of this group later. P0M 07:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am removing a paragraph that relates to an entirely irrelevant Suborder. The Geolycosa is an example of the Araneomorphae, which is why it is listed here: Phylum: ARTHROPODA Class: ARACHNIDA Order: Araneida Suborder: Araneomorphae Family: Lycosida Genus: Geolycosa The other spider, shown as a contrast, belongs to the Suborder Mygalomorphae. P0M 16:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That being said, I have a hard time to understand why Sphodros rufipes has its place in here too (as there's also the photograph in its respective suborder)... it seems these articles need overhauling. FelisSchrödingeris 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite?
[edit]This article is in need of a rewrite, I think. Most of it appears to be copy-pasted from another source, and obviously someone has removed or repositioned some pictures, because one section refers to images that aren't actually there. Edaemus (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Rank?
[edit]Is this a suborder as stated here or an infraorder within suborder Opisthothelae as stated in Spider#Taxonomy and Wikispecies? --Stfg (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ranks do not matter much. Mithril (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I understand that view, but Wikipedia is inconsistent in its treatment of Opisthothelae and its members. I'd have the thought that the consitency does matter. --Stfg (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since there's no rank between order and suborder, if araneomorphs are considered a suborder, Opisthothelae have no rank. To my mind the appropriate solution of the inconsistency depends on what version is more common in taxoboxes. Mithril (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Unfortunately, some articles treat Araneomorphae as a suborder and some as an infraorder of Opisthothelae. I've raised the issue for spider articles as a whole at Talk:Spider#Taxonomy. What's there is about all I can do as a layman. Please would you have a look at it? --Stfg (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since there's no rank between order and suborder, if araneomorphs are considered a suborder, Opisthothelae have no rank. To my mind the appropriate solution of the inconsistency depends on what version is more common in taxoboxes. Mithril (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I understand that view, but Wikipedia is inconsistent in its treatment of Opisthothelae and its members. I'd have the thought that the consitency does matter. --Stfg (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)