Talk:Labyrinthodontia

The term "Batracomorpha"

Hi 123.185.125.108! I see you are editing the article, and I'm happy to see someone besides myself interested in these critters! I see you have added Batrachomorpha, which puzzles me somewhat. Batrachomorpha is a unit with a very long and varied history, and can be misleading if you do not specify whose' definition of Batrachomorpha you are using. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reptiliomorpha/Labyrinthodontia/Amphibia

Hello again! I've noticed you've included Labyrinthodontia and Amphibia (sensu lato) in the automatic taxoboxes, giving some of the early tetrapod and stem-amniote (reptiliomorph) groups a "traditional" taxonomy. While I have nothing against mentioning this classification in the article, I think that the taxobox should be reserved for the "modern" (i.e. mostly phylogenetic) taxonomy. Even though early tetrapod phylogeny is a mess, very few recent papers that I've seen refer to these animals as labyrinthodonts or amphibians. If they do, it's usually informally. I think it makes more sense to have the parent taxon of Reptiliomorpha be Tetrapoda in the taxonomy templates, which would remove Labyrinthodontia and Amphibia from stem amniote taxoboxes. I'm not proposing that we use a strictly phylogenetic taxonomy for these taxoboxes, just one that is more commonly used today. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this a number of times in Reptile article, and have come to the opposite conclusion. See:

Talk:Reptile/Archive_1#Split_this_article_into_separate_pieces

Talk:Reptile/Archive_1#.22Sauropsida.22_links_to_Reptilia.3F

Talk:Reptile/Archive_1#Sauropsida_or_Reptilia.3F

Talk:Reptile/Archive_1#BIRDS.3F.3F.3F.3F

Talk:Reptile/Archive_1#The_Class.2FClade_problem

Talk:Reptile/Archive_1#Where_have_all_the_Sauropsida_gone

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Archive_4#Reptilia_or_Sauropsida.3F:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Archive_3#Taxonomic_and_Phylogenic_Classification_Systems

Related discussion on ranks in the taxoboxes:

[[1]]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Eurypterida_-_Class_or_Order

Secondly (and as you noted), there is no consensus about the classification of labyrinthodonts. Traditional vertebrate classification may not be used in specialist works, but it is stable, consistent and easily undrstandable. It is also the only classification anyone who is not an expert in the fiels (i.e 99% of all people likely to read the article) is likely to be familiar with (if familiar at all). Wikipedia is not written for the experts, it is written for the layman. The details of the various systematic approaches to labyrinthodonts is well covered in the article.

If this is aquestion related to the use of automated taxoboxes, I suggest anchoring Amniota in Tetrapoda in stead of messing around with Reptiliomorpha. If one really wish to be add every known unit, then Reptiliomorpha should anchor in Ichthyostegalia (possibly via Temnospondyli if we are to believe Anderson), then via Elpistostegalia, again anchored in Osteolepiformes and so on and so on. While correct phylogenetically, it makes for a very poor classification. Taxoboxes are there to offer overview and function as navigational aids, not as a full account of phylogeny, that is what we have the text for. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Happened to notice this discussion. This sentence: "Taxoboxes are there to offer overview and function as navigational aids, not as a full account of phylogeny, that is what we have the text for" is absolutely spot on, and should be on the ToL project page, in bold, in my view. Showing complex phylogenies as diagrams is useful; showing one branch of such a diagram as a long list of clades in a taxobox serves no useful purpose. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps we can suggest such an ammendment to the ToL project ;-)

Smokeybjb, to understand why i have anchored Reptiliomorpha in Labyrinthodontia, I suggest you brows the Labyrinthodontia article. I need a consistent and coherent way of classifying labyrinthodonts. The altrnative is to use "tetrapoda" as sort of codeword for labyrinthodonts. This been attempted (see some off the older versions of Tetrapoda), but the problem is that Ttrapoda is usually understood as a clade, not as a grade. This double use of the word (both to describe the modern groups and as a reference to the early grade in order to avoid saying "labyrinthodont") is very confusing to all but a very restricted group of phylogeneticists. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Labyrinthodontia can be used for lack of a better term in the taxoboxes, but I still think it should be left out. Labyrinthodontia is somewhat outdated, not just because it's paraphyletic, but because it's rarely even used anymore. I wouldn't describe labyrinthodont classification as "stable" if the traditional names have been mostly abandoned. With that reasoning, the traditional classification is stable because few paleontologists use it, and don't care to change it. There's no need to include all the confusing details of phylogenetics, but I don't see much harm in introducing some more "up to date" terminology in the taxobox. And that doesn't mean including many obscure clades, just some important groups. While we should work to make articles easily understandable, the articles should also represent current knowledge with the aim that readers will learn something new. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The alternative to Labyrinthodontia is to use Michel Laurin's Stegocephalia. He has taken up that old term as an alternative to "saying Tetrapoda when you really mean Labyrinthdodonts". I'm not sure putting Stegocephalia in the taxobox hierarchy would help. Besides, his definition suffers the same problem of using a clade when implying a grade. The phylogenetic taxonomy alternative is Stem Tetrapoda, but that unit doesn't contain a nomber of the critters under discussion.

Currently, the taxobox system allows for a so-called "skip template" where you can skip some of the nodes. This is how all taxoboxes anhored through Amniota allso shows Reptiliomorpha, but Amphibia is invisible. My suggestion is to skip Reptiliomorpha too, so that e.g. birds and mammals anhor in Amniota who again anhor in Tetrapoda. That way the layrinthodont can be given a consistent taxonomy, without affecting the remaining of the tree. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have a skip template for Amphibia. While groups like Temnospondyli and Lepospondyli are often classified as amphibians, reptiliomorphs and early tetrapods aren't often referred to as amphibians. And again, I don't think Labyrinthodontia should be included in taxoboxes as per my comments above. If it is, at least change the rank so it doesn't seem like a monophyletic grouping. The best rank right now would be "stem group" or "informal group", although "grade" would be better if it was available. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, if I have understood you correctly we are discussing two separate things here: 1) the classification of Reptiliomorpha/Anthracosauria in relationship to the taxoboxes of amniote groups, and 2) the classification of labyrinthodonts per se. Am I right? These two are obviously linked, but thanks to the skip-template, we can discuss these two separately.

1) I suggest using a skip-template to route Amniota past Reptiliomorpha so that it appears anchored in Tetrapoda. The Amniote article starts off with identifying Reptiliomorpha as parent anyway. Remember, the taxobox is for classifcation, not the full phylogeny.

2) The rank for Labyrinthodontia does not indicate it represents a clade, rather the opposite. Linnaean taxons can be paraphyletic (in fact the higher traditional taxons mostly are), non-Linnaean "ranks" such as "Informal group" or "group" are typical of phylogenetic nomenclature, and would indicate a clade. Neither can we use a cladistic term like stem group, as the phylogenetic definition of such a group is quite exact, and Labyrinthodontia is neither Stem Tetrapoda nor Stem Amniota. Actually, the two stem groups sever Labyrintodontia in two, the Ichthyostegalia and possibly some more families ending up in the former togehther with a lot of fishes, and possibly only Reptiliomorpha in the latter, leaving Temnospondyli (i.e the majority of Labyrinthodonts) out. Exactly who goes where is at the moment anyones guess. Stem groups can be useful when the phyolgenetic tree is known and they match traditional groups, but neither is true in this case. The article on Labyrinthodontia starts off very clearly saying it is an evolutionary grade. An alternative to traditional classification is following Benton, but his classification is no more phylogenetic correct, and is highly idiosyncratic besides. With the extreme fussiness of the labyrinthdont tree, the only phylogenetic alternative is to anchor all the families separately and directly to Tetrapoda, and then you run into the problem of whose Tetrapoda you are using, Laurin's, Carroll's, or Clack's. As I hope you understand, my choice of classification is not based on pig-headed traditionalism or unreflected fawning for Romer, but for a lack of decent alternatives. After all, we are not doing WP:OR here. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be getting confusing:

1) Reptiliomorpha in taxoboxes: The skip template sounds good to me, although this would only affect the Amniota article since Reptiliomorpha is not set to "always displayed" and does not appear for the child taxa of Amniota.

2) Labyrinthodontia: Most taxa that have been given Linnean ranks have now received their own phylogenetic definitions, so any name usually fits both classification systems. This isn't the case for Labyrinthodontia. Even if Linnean taxa can be paraphyletic, there sure is an incentive among taxonomists to abandon those that are. Combining elements of multiple authors' more recent classifications wouldn't be OR in my opinion, so there's no need to use any one author's scheme (Romer, Benton, Laurin, Carroll, Clack, etc.). I'm not proposing that we should rank Labyrinthodontia as "stem group," but it may be a good idea to rank it as "grade". We could propose this new rank over at Template talk:Automatic taxobox if you think it is a good idea. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Grade" is OK with me. I do like the structuring ffect of Linnaean ranks, but I quite agree that Labyrinthodontia is rarely used these days. Most authors does like the sea scorpion researchers: Avoid the whole debackle by concentrating on the child taxa without needing to specify parent taxa.

Edit: I have now edited the automated taxobox to show Labyrinthodontia in quotation marks as per the template documentation (see [[2]]). I hope this solves the immediate problem. I have also added a * linked to paraphyly to the taxon name in the Labyrithodontia taxobox. I'd like to retain a manual taxobox for Labyrinthodontia, in order to have the parent set to "Amphibia sensu lato", which won't be possible with an automated taxobox. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is there a way to have asterisks in automatic taxoboxes that link to paraphyly? I'd expect that someone might be surprised by the quotations and revert the edits. If there's also a linked asterisk right next to the taxon name, the reasoning behind the quotations would be clearer. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't thing the asterisk thing is implemented in the automatic taxoboxes, we'll have to ask Bob to see it it is at all possible and if so to ad one. Perhaps a parameter "paraphyly" can be added, giving a linked asterisk? Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OR and Synt

I see a lot of issues of original research/synthesis here. This article is put together like a research paper which cites the sources it draws from to reach new conclusions, rather than citing the direct sources of its content. For example, there is a section on Benton's classification. This looks at the taxonomy of Benton, which does not even include the word labyrinthodont, and presents it (presumably) the way Benton would see the labarynthodonts if he recognized such a group, which he doesn't. The previous section presents a taxonomy from Case (which I can find nowhere in the linked source, but presumably this is simply an acceptable simplification of the structure of the contents), and attributes to him several uses of the term "grade" as if it were a rank or compliment to clade, which is not only not present in the source but AFAIK is a bit anachronistic. This is incredibly misleading and the entire section should be removed. It is not appropriate to cite a source which does not directly corroborate the claim, data, or figure (in this case the taxonomy) being presented.

I am trying to assume good faith here but in the process of fact-checking this article it appears as if a lot of synthesis has been done to make it appear that this taxon is better supported and more widely accepted in the modern literature than it actually is, because some editor or another feels it is "handy." (Note: The primary justification in the text for using this group was previously an unnsourced statement that it is handy to use the group even if it is paraphyletic. I removed this because it appeared to be unsourced editorializing. I replaced it with a verified statement from a tertiary source that it may be convenient to use the group informally). MMartyniuk (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dinoguy, you are quite right, the classifiaction is not from Case, rather it is from Watson (1920): The Structure, Evolution and Origin of the Amphibia. The "Orders' Rachitomi and Stereospondyli, with the term "grade" and all. I have edited these sections a lot, and by mistake I ended up attributing it to Case rather than Watson, thanks for pointing that out! I'll fix it at once.

I do feel the section from Benton is important, both because it shows an alternative way of sorting the labyrinthodonts, and because Bentons book has been very influential. The intro was sloppily worded, I'll try to rewrite it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Benton does not once use the word "labyrinthodont". Making it sound like he recognizes this concept is essentially falsifying the source. If I made an article on Thecodonts, listing all the traditional "thecodonts" listed in Nesbitt's recent paper on archosaur phylogeny, removed all the traditional non-thecodonts, and attributed the result to Nesbitt, that would be generating new content while referencing another source, which is original research. Benton does not recognize the concept of Labyrinthodontia so nothing from Benton should be present in an article about that concept. His classification is appropriate for Amphibia instead. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you saw the last edit before removing it, it said (quote): "Benton's influential Vertebrate Palaeontology does not recognize Labyrinthodontia as a formal unit, instead dividing the early amphibian tetrapods into ...". I would have thought this made it clear the article does not claim Benton as a source of legitimacy. It is however true that Benton rarely if ever uses the phrase, even informally (using in stead the more inclusive 'amphibian'). I still feel Benton's treatment is relevant. Would it be acceptable to you if the section was included with the phylogenetic section under a header saying saying something about alternatives to using Labyrinthodontia as a systematic unit? Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is Wikipedia. Adding information to an article and citing a source that says it is NOT correct or applicable doesn't make the content acceptable. What you're doing is basically saying "Source x does not have anything to say about topic y, but here's what it says about topic z, which this editor believes is tangentially related." If Benton does not recognize Labyrinthodontia, but recognizes a different classification scheme that happens to include the same animals, why is it included in an article about a concept he doesn't recognize instead of one he does like "Classification of Amphibians"? Stating that Benton has no relevance to the article topic but here's what he says anyway about a related topic is simply bizarre. In essence, you are looking at Benton's classification, using your own knowledge and research to pick out the bits of his classification that relate to Labyrinthodontia as used by other researchers, and presenting that as if it's relevant. It may be relevant, but saying so is original synthesis.MMartyniuk (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Labyrinthodontia or Tetrapoda?

I don't think that labarenthodontia should be incloaded in taxoboxs. Since the reder rarely cliks on a link he/she will asume that the clades in the taxobox have the concensous of the Sciontific comunity on their side and isn't going to know anything about peraphilly so incloding won't help. And the concensous over tetrapoda, at leest acording to the tetrapod article is to use the turm to refer to stem-groop tetrapods.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. First off, what goes in the taxobox are taxonomic groups. These may be clades or grades. There's no rule that anything in a taxobox must be a clade. Secondly. the term "Stem group tetrapod" has no relevant meaning. First off, it includes a lot of fish, see Stem Tetrapoda for an article on this group. Secondly, depending on whose phylogeny you use, it may include only the Ichthyostegalia, or Ichthyostegalia pluss one or both of Temnospondyli and Lepospondyli, depending on author. The tree is really fussy at this point, making a phylogenetic nomenclatural approach useless. Thirdly, the tetrapod article is out of date and needs a serious rewrite. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I didn't kno that erly tetrapod filogeny was so messy but if somebody was reding an article with labarinthodontia in its taxobox and the article the reder was reding didn't say that labarinthodontia is not monophiletic then that could patentialy mislede the reder. If the content of tetrapoda varys from author to author then what about tetrapoda sensu lato with the definition of sensu lato in perenthesies.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aliafroz1901, a solution would be to make a "skip" template and re-rout all the amniotes around Amphibia and anchor them directly in Tetrapoda. This is a suggestion I have forwarded before, without much support.

Petter Bøckman the mane argument against skipping is the lak of a stable definition for tetrapoda but tetrapoda and tetrapoda sensu lato are not the same thing. Another way would be folloing Benton and ranking reptiliomorfa and batrachomorfa as classes and useing them instead, while useing amfibia/tetrapoda sensu lato for more baisul taxa.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reference I can find for "Tetrapoda sensy lato" (tetrapods in the wide sense) is from Mikko's Phylogenetic Archive. It has Tetrapoda sensu lato as Temnospondyls + reptiliomorpha. This is a very odd assemblage to call tetrapods in the wide sense, as it is really restrictive, excluding not only the Ichthyostegalians but a few of the other as well. Just to top it off, as it is pholognetically defined, it suffers some of the same instability as Stem Tetrapoda. Following Benton is a possibility, but is has been rejected as Benton has a 1) very idiosyncratic classification and 2) is not in agreement with any of the authorities on the matter. As I said, routing around the whole Amphibia debacle is an easy and neat way of doing it. Exactly what group gave rise to whom is in my view a matter for the article text, not for the taxobox. The taxobox needs something neat and reasonably stable, and in this part of the tree that means accepting an old-fashion evolutionary approach. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote above"Benton has a 1) very idiosyncratic classification and 2) is not in agreement with any of the authorities on the matter" sari but the old sistem is even mor idiosyncratic and if anything more in disagreement with any of the authorities on the matter. If useing tetrapoda sensu lato isn't possible then what about tetrapoda sensu scientist x year y since an article about say Temnospondyli isn't going to tell you that labyrinthodontia is invalid. I hope you agree that wikipedia is written to tell the reder what is the concensous amung scientists and not to present the reder with the most stable way to classify something.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are really no accepted higher way of organizing the various labyrinthodonts. Due to the traditional/phylogenetic upheaval, lack of stability most authors concentration on other aspects of the field, most authorities simply ignore the formal classification of the group. Laurin, one of the driving forces behind the PhyloCode, has proposed using "Stegocehpali". It is a somewhat traditional name, but it suffers from the same problem as many phylogenetic names, being a clade, but originally coined as a grade and even by Laurin used only when describing the basal member, i.e. as a grade. With the extreme fussiness of the labyrinthdont tree, the only phylogenetic alternative is to anchor all the families separately and directly to Tetrapoda, and then you run into the Tetrapoda problem again. While using an outdated classification is sub-optimal, there really are no decent alternatives. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually reed what I posted since useing tetrapoda sensu scientist X year Y where X is an well-knone authority on the erly tetrapods Y is a recent year and the definition proposed by X Y is one of the most widely accepted ones easily solves the whole tetrapod problem. The problem with Labyrinthodontia is that there is really no scientist left who still uses it.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, but we try to avoid that version for taxoboxes, as it would be taking a standpoint as to what author or more "official" than the other. Considering the extreme unstability of Tetrapoda among just the authors dealing with labyrinthodonts, it would be a very unfortunate situation. In that case, it would have been better to use Amphibia sensu lato, which actually do see some use.

You don't need to leave a notice on my user-page whenever you comment here, I have this page on my watchlist. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Due to the traditional/phylogenetic upheaval, lack of stability most authors concentration on other aspects of the field, most authorities simply ignore the formal classification of the group. Laurin, one of the driving forces behind the PhyloCode, has proposed using "Stegocehpali". It is a somewhat traditional name, but it suffers from the same problem as many phylogenetic names," That's your personal opinion. Where in the literature or tertiary sources is it argued that Labyrinthodontia should be retained over a cladistic concept of Stegocephali because cladistic names are unsatable and cause problems when using ranked taxonomy? (I'm asking about this case specifically, not arguments of clades vs. ranked in general that could be applied here by a researcher). Correct me if I'm wrong, but your reasoning here seems to be that 1) Labyrinthodontia is a useful paraphyletic grade 2) Even though most modern literature disagrees with you, alternatives make your preferred taxobox arrangement difficult or impossible to implement, so 3) it's ok to continue using Labyrinthodontia in order to achieve the goal of having Wikipedia reflect your preferred taxonomic scheme. I would argue that Labyrinthodontia is not sufficiently well supported by modern researchers except as an informal term rather than a taxon or clade, and that the various labyrinthodont taxa should be anchored instead to their direct parent clades or whatever is supportable. If this means traditional "Orders" need to be renamed as clades in the taxobox, then that is simply reflecting the current state of the science, as Wiki is supposed to do, rather than cling to disused models for the sake of convenience. My vote would be to tweak this article only slightly and remove the taxobox (making it about an historical taxon like Thecodontia) and link the taxoboxes of various labyrinthodont groups to their actual parent clades. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"I did, but we try to avoid that version for taxoboxes, as it would be taking a standpoint as to what author or more "official" than the other" sari but including labyrinthodontia is takeing a standpointe, and one that is in support of a classification that currently laks any support in the scientific comunity.

Dinoguy, I am in full support of what you have said. Though, I think some changes are in order. To mention some of them, the article should be moved to labyrinthodont, since the group is invalid but the members are rather distinctive-looking, granted the trimendous amount of variation in the diferent species belonging to the group. I also think that this article should be modified somewhat after the pelycosaur article, which seems to be a perfect "role model" for other grade like labyrinthodontia.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One possible solution here is to anchor all the labyrinthodnont groups directly in Amphibia. Amphibia is generally understood to be a grade, except by the crown-group people who uses Amphibia = Lissamphibia. However, even Laurin, a die-hard crown group enthusiast, uses 'amphibia' or 'amphibian' (with the quatation marks) for a groups comprising the traditional class, so I guess that should be OK.

I think keeping those that actually have a rank as orders as orders will cater to all and make our lives a bit easier. We don't really know what main groups are clades and which ones are grades. Keeping them as traditional orders remove the need for certainty of their status as clades. the taxobox for a couple of them will have to read "possible ancestors of the Lissamphibia" and some other groups, but I suppose that is a minor problem. Organizing the hierarchy of taxoboxes will be fickle, we'll probably have to balance carefully at the border of WP:SYNTH and WO:OP.

Here's my take at the scientific consensus: There is a general consensus that there are two main branches of labyrinthodonts, the Antracosauria/Reptiliomorpha on one hand and the Temnopsondyli or the other. So far so good. Where the Leopospondyli actually belongs is a bit more in the blue, but most authors have them somewhere near or branching off from the Antracosauria. I assume we can use that as a sort of consensus. When it comes to Lissamphibians, they are either Temnospondyls, Lepospondyls or possible close relatives of Lepospondyls. We should stay well away from any phylogenetic definition that includes modern amphibian taxa, other than where such proposed groups are discussed directly.

The origin of Amniota is again difficult. It used to be quite certain they are the sister group of Diadectomorpha, and while most authorities use this as "conventional wisdom", it is by no mans certain. It is rather well covered in the article, no need for me to repeat it here. With the uncertainty surrounding this and the Lepospondyls being thrown in the mix for good measure, I think we might use Reptiliomorpha as an article discussing the many definitions of the term and the difficulty in establishing a phylogenetic definition, and keep Anthracosauria as a name for the traditional group. This has the benefit of being either Romers traditional unit or anchored fairly well down the ladder in phylogenetic studies using the term (though under some analysis' it contains Lepospondyli and/or Lissamphibia), so that the content is reasonably stable and well understood.

The only group falling outside any of the major divisions is the Loxomatidae. The exact position is uncertain, but the majority seems to prefer it outside the Anthracosauria/Temnospondyli-splitt. My I suggest an incerta cedis directly in Amphibia?

The early groups can be treated as now under Ichthyostegalia, but it is almost certainly not a clade. I have seen some suggestions they may be an early offshoot (clade), but this is a very minor minority view.

As Aliafroz1901 suggested, this would necessitate the movement of this article to "Labyrinthodont" (per now a redirect page). The information in the taxobox should be implemented in the lede. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

All good suggestions. There's no reason the taxobox structure has to precisely match any particular phylogenetic hypothesis. Many pages for groups of uncertain placement are simply assigned to the most restrictive taxon that is not controversial (as long as the articles themselves discuss the various alternatives). As for Labyrinthodont vs. Labyrinthodontia, I'd advise against moving it. As recently implemented for Thecodont, the generic term could refer to the anatomy of the specific tooth type in addition to the group named for that anatomy. Therefore I'd reccomend making Labyrinthodont a disambiguation page both linking to Labyrinthodontia and defining a "labyrinthodont tooth". MMartyniuk (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm I agree with what you two are saying, except about anthracosauria, you see Benton has it as an invalid clade composed of the "lower" Reptiliomorphs, while another scientist has it composed of the most advanced. Another change I feel is neded is the implimentation of a "invalid clade" parameter in the automatic taxobox. Something along the lines of

"classe:

(invalid clade):

"Amphibia"".Aliafroz1901 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A clade, by definition, can't be invalid-it's either a clade or its not. What you're looking for may be informal group, which is already implemented (see Rhamphorhynchoidea), though in my opinion informal groups are not really taxa and so should not have taxoboxes at all. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I ment "invalid group" not "invalid clade". I due think that informal group is inoppropriate, since it meens that the group is not used in the literature, which obviously is not the case with Amphibia.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Labyrinthodontia vs labyrinthodont: A disambiguation page will requite a bit of job, I think quite a few pages link to it intending to link to this article.

Anthracosauria vs Reptiliomorpha: If non of them are satisfactory names due to instability, we could use the vernacular "Reptile-like amphibians", which I think (though I may be wrong here) is fairly well understood. It won't be the first article with a vernacular name and more than one scientific one. 31.45.114.219 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should use "reptile-like amphibian", since it sounds overly amatureistic, though, we could use something along the lines of "reptiliomorpha(reptile-like amphibians)". About Labyrinthodontia VS Labyrinthodont, we could ad "This article is about the group of animals, for the tipe of tuth se Labyrinthodont teeth." to the top of the article.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, your edit must have drowned out in all the other stuff on my watch list (need to prune it I suppose).

Whether "Reptile-like amphibians" sounds amateuristic is besides the point. We want an article on these critters? Then we need an article name that unambiguously refer to this group. Reptiliomorpha means a lot of things, and while Anthracosauria is a bit more stable, it's still not ideal. Reptile-like amphibians is however very stable, meaning anything from Anthracosaurus and up to (but excluding) amniotes.

Agree on the teeth. 31.45.114.219 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While useing reptiliomorpha (reptile-like amphibians) solves the problem, having an article named reptiliomorpha which discussed the various definitions and then useing reptiliomorpha (reptile-like amphibians) as the name for an article discussing the group as defined by most people is probably not the best thing to do.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of a hybrid solution, and with the added complication of a bracket. While I don't like "Reptiliomorpha" as it is now, it is better than "reptiliomorpha (reptile-like amphibians)", simply because the latter is unwieldly and still doesn't solve the basic problem associated with the term "Reptiliomorpha". Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You're rite-thinking over it makes me think that it implys that all sciontists think that reptiliomorph and reptile-like amphibian are exactly the same thing, which is dam incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliafroz1901 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, an implied agreement would be incorrect. Reptiliomorpha may span only the Diadectomorpha (+ descendants) or all the way down to Tulerpeton (or something in between) depending on author.Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we semed to have reached an agreement, what about proposeing moveing reptiliomorpha to reptile-like amphibian. And seeing as we need to create an article on labyrinthodont teeth do you have any papers on this topic, I'll have a look at google scaler but I dout that they are more then 60 profesional papers discussing this topic in any sort of detaele.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)  

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliafroz1901 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 

I think you'll find something on their twwth here: http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app46/app46-137.pdf Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem, Why hasn't this article been moved to labyrinthodont.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Petter why did you re-ad the taxobox? You seme to be implying that you did this because this is not the concensous but in the above discussion I, you and dinogigh2 all seme to agree that the taxobox should be removed and this in my opinion counts as a pretty strong and solid concensous. you have also not moved the page to labyrinthodont, despite the concensous supporting this move. why is this the case?Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if my writing was not clear on that point. Dinoguy agrees the taxobox should go, I do not. I only meant to say that it would be a better solution than renaming this article Tetrapoda, which was the alternative scenario. I prefer to have the taxobox as it is, for the reasons stated above. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What du you mene? nobody suggested a move to tetrapod. Or did you meen labyrinthodont?

I did in dede misreed your poste because the way you said it it sounded like you support both the move to labyrinthodont and the removal of the taxobox.

As your posts aren't rielly cleare so could you plese list your reasons for keeping the taxobox in a clearer post below. and before doing that plese take into account that the wikipedia polisy on following the scientific concensous does not list any ecseptions in caces where itt sacrifices the stabilety of the content. I am not saying that grades shouldn't have taxoboxs- in cases like stereospondyli when the taxon, though a grade does have the concensous of the scientific community backing it, I ambe not against including a taxobox.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving the article from Labyrinthodontia to Labyrinthodont would not present a problem for me. Labyrinthodont is the vernacular name, and those are preferred in Wikipedia, that's OK with me.

I want to keep the taxobox for four reasons. 1) This is a review article on a rather large group, the taxobox provide a nice summary/overview of the group, helping readers to navigate Wikipedia, 2) the group see occasional use, even as a formal group (though not often), 3) there's no other article dedicated to this group (just articles dedicated to subgroups or parent groups) and 4) there is no alternative consensus-taxonomy at offer, the taxobox reflects "last consensus view". Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox or not?

Just to chime in here, is the use of Labarynthodontia verifiable? The article itself says it has been essentially abandoned by modern scientists, and I am failing to find any papers which use the term in even a paraphyletic sense since at least the last 15 years. I know Benton uses it but frankly he is in the minority on clinging to Linnean nomenclature. It it in current, practical use by most researchers? If not, it should not be in the taxobox, IMO, however useful we think it is. In fact there probably should not be a taxobox on the Labyrinthodontia page at all, following other abandoned taxa like Thecodont and Pelycosaur. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Practical example of why it's a bad idea to retain this term: Diadectomorpha has an auto taxobox which includes "Labyrinthodontia", but I can find no references even within the past 20 years which consider Diadcectomorphs to be 'labyrinthodonts'. This is almost as bad as if we implemented "Thecodontia" into the taxobox somewhere north of Archosauria and had it pop up as a parent taxon of Dinosauria. It's essentially suggesting that 1960s taxonomy is still in use today. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is verifiable. I guess this only goes to show our perceptions is formed by what we read. I'm going over Hildebrand & Goslow's Analysis of vertebrate structure these days, a very good textbook on comparative vertebrate anatomy and just the kind of secondary source Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. It has a basically Linnaean (Romerian) set-up in the accompanying systematic overview, including Labyrinthodontia and Pelycosauria (just to mention two groups where this is a relevant question). The book is from 2001, so it's hardly "1960s taxonomy". I do not at all agree to your assessment that older groups are to be stripped of their taxoboxes, at least not when they actually do fit into modern phylogenetic knowledge. Labyrinthodontia is essentially identical to Laurins use of "Stegocephalia", only the latter is even more arcane, so Labyrinthodontia is the logical name for a Wikipedia article. The taxobox is, as we have been over a few times, not there for the expert who do not need it anyway, it is a navigational tool for the general reader.

I do on the other hand see the problem of forcing everything through Labyrinthodontia. Would a skip template solve the problem, making the various labyrinthodont groups appear directly anchored in Amphibia? The same procedure could perhaps be used on Pelycosauria. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So it seems this kind of thing is limited to textbooks, like Hildebrand & Goslow and Benton's Vertebrate Paleontology. The problem is that if an entire taxonomic system is based on a lone source (which notoriously lags behind current research by quite a bit), Wiki will also have the problem of not reflecting consensus of current research. In other words, just because it's in a textbook doesn't mean its consensus in the relevant field of study, which in my understanding is what is recommended for Wikipedia articles. Certainly textbooks (what you're reading) are useful as sources, but should they trump the current literature where they conflict (which I'm reading), or vice versa? IMO both are valid sources of information and the different uses should be discussed in the text, but we shouldn't give undue weight to one (a handfull of textbooks) over the other (ten years of published literature). MMartyniuk (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree the traditional system is in little use in vertebrate palaeontology research these days (textbooks being another matter). Which leaves us with the question of what to put in the taxo-boxes, contra what goes in the article text. I have argued in the past (and will do so again) that classefication goes in the taxobox, phylogeny in the text. A classefication system is only useful when it is conservative. The basic idea behind phylogenetic nomenclature is to be able to change content while keeping the name stable, opposite the Linnaean system which keeps the content stable but may change names a bit. In labyrinthodonts, where the "current" phylogenetic tree changes with every new paper, phylogenetic nomenclature is simply useless. E.g. the name "stem tetrapod" has no set and relevant meaning as the content varies with each paper. This is why the whole article is unbashfully Linnaean in approach.

But back to the question: What about routing around Labyrinthodontia, anchoring the main groups directly in Amphibia by use of a "skip template"? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"I have argued..." but nobody else has, which is the problem. I agree with you and I myself am a fan of the usefulness of ranked taxonomy in parallel to phylogeny (just seem my personal web site). But it is simply not supported by the current literature, which is IMO what Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. While classification is what's meant to go in the taxobox, vert paleontologists do not classify things anymore beyond those that arise from phylogeny. As I proposed over at Talk:Wikipeoject Dinosaur, the auto taxobox makes it feasible to simply remove the rank labels and remove them with clade labels, which is verifiable and won't create discontinuity with those boxes that cam support a current classification. Anchoring all the taxa back to Amphibia would be a good interim solution if possible, though I've never seen Diadectes referred to an as an amphibian either... MMartyniuk (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that experts do not use ranks. I don't need to tell you that Essex, New Jersey is a suburb of New York, and not a hill or a river. You grew up in New Jersey, you know this by heart. However, if you were to give me directions, it would be vital for me to know. Similarly, ranks are a navigational aids, no more, no less. To you or me (or to any palaentology scientist ) it is entirely inconsequential whether Anthracosauria is a family, order or subclass. The ranks are not used in publications for other experts because they are unnecessary to other experts and do not justify the ballast, just as you never have to tell your family what Essex is. Reproducing the peculiarities of publications for experts on Wikipedia by referring to "current literature" is missing the point , bout of Wikipedia, the taxobox and the trend in scientific publications. If anything is to go by, basic grade university textbooks (e.g. Benton's) is a suitable level to aim at. This is why Wikipedia policy says secondary sources are preferred, and primary sources are to be used with caution.

As for Diadectes as an amphibian, it can be backed in use by Carroll (still an active scientist in the field), and even Laurin has it as an 'amphibian'. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your directions analogy is apt, because looking at the taxobox for Diadectes, all I know is that it's a labyrinthodont amphibian. As someone versed in taxonomy, I know that both of those terms are essentially meaningless when used that way--I have no idea how close it is to amniotes, if it's more of a basal tetrapod, or what. That implies to me that somebody who is not already versed in taxonomy will be misinformed about the topic. The ranks can tell me how (relatively) large or small a group is, but to know about the characteristics of a group, it's more useful to put them in context of phylogeny, so I can know whether or not Diadectes would be more similar to Dimetrodon or to Eryops. In fact, Diadectes is more closely related to, and has more in common with, amniotes like Dimetrodon than to amphibians like Eryops, or at least is somewhere between those two. But you would never know that from the taxobox. To extend your analogy, it would be like listing Essex as a subdivison of NJ, and then list NJ as part of New York, and as a consequence, Camden is listed as a suburb of New york as well even though it's much closer to Philadelphia. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to tell you that Diadectes being classified as a reptiliomorpan amphiban tells a lot about the animal when I noticed the automated taxobox routing around Reptiliomorpha. Any idea why? Is it because Reptiliomorpha is unranked? I'm tempted to give it a major rank (order, like Carroll do). Reptiliomorpha being kind of essential here, is there a way to make sure it shows in the relevant taxoboxes, without showing up in e.g. Aves and Mammalia taxoboxes?

As for the Camden example, I'm not sure I know the local area well enough to comment (never been to the US). Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy for Diadectamorpha

Have a look at Diadectes now and see if this arrangement is more to your liking! Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's better, but it still tells me nothing about its position relative to other tetrapods, because I know Amphibia is a paraphyletic group. Reading Diadectomorpha, I see that their lifestyle and mode of reproduction is controversial because it's unclear if they are amniotes or "amphibians", but a cladogrgram in there somewhere would be infinitely more useful to me than the taxobox. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I can see what you are looking for, do you want the taxobox to reflect that Diadectes belong to a group generally considered very close to Amniota? Well, there's a number of snags to that one: Diadectes itself is quite clearly not on the direct line to Amniotes, it is a highly specialized critter well off from the first amniotes (who were small, insectivorous swamp dwellers). It is Diadectomorpha as a whole, or possibly Diadectomorpha + Seymouriamorpha that form the sister group to amniotes. The close position to amniota is a matter for these two taxons, not for Diadectes per se.

Unfortunately there's no published named for the clade Diadectomorpha + Amniota or Seymouriamorpha + Diadectomorpha + Amniota, unless you count Cotylosauria, which will have the phylogenetists knickers in a twist as it is really dated and generally understood to be a grade. The close affinity to Amniota must remain a matter for the article text, not the taxobox. Stem Amniota could have been an alternative, but with the root of Lissamphibia being in the blue, the content could include a lot of critters, e.g. Lepospondyli. While not likely, it is a posibility it could include quite a bit of Temnospondyli as well, including Eryops! Thus "Stem Amniota" needs to be kept well away from taxoboxes. Even Laurin, former president of the ISPN do not use it as a formal taxon!

The Linnaean taxonomy of Diadectes actually tells you quite a lot. Being a Reptiliomorph (or Anthracosaur) tells you it is a fairly competent land lubber (or secondarily aquatic). Being an amphibian, it must have started life as an aquatic egg. Whether it had a free tadpole stage is any-ones guess, not all modern amphibians has it either, but virtually all recent papers agree Diadectes itself was not an amniote, and the eggs would have been too big to survive on land. The Reptiliomorpha article has section devoted to the problem, same with Labyrinthodontia#Origin of the Amniota. If you happends to know enough phylogeny to know where the Diadectomorpha belongs, you'd know it is close to amniotes too. A cladogram in the Diadectomorpha article seems in order though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I have amended the text for Diadectes, Diadectomorpha and Reptiliomorpha to give a more clear picture of the current state of knowledge. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'm not using this as a metaphor, I really was looking for information on actual phylogenetic relationships of this group and could not find it (spurred by a recent trip to the AMNH where I took a lot of photos of the mounted Diadectes specimen and meant to learn more about the group!). I didn't realize that, unlike standard of practice for dinosaurologists, workers upon basal reptilliomorphs had not yet named every available node and branch between Lissamphibia and Amniota... I agree with some anti-Phylocoders that such a practice can be detrimental and create clutter, but on the other hand it does, IMO, aid discussion in sussing out how each lineage is related, and can affect the parsimony of bracketing (for example, of how "reptile" or amphibian" like a group may have been). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! You wouldn't happen to have taken a close up of the dentition? We could use some for the Diadectes article. Dinosaur studies really is kind of special with it's multitude of names. I don't mind phylogenetic names as such, and I see the value of names to allow detailed discussion. What I do mind is the redefinition of known groups. I am an "end user" taxonomists, to me stability of content is far more important than names. I'm also really primarily an ecologist. I want to know "what made them tick" primarily, phylogeny is to me mostly relevant to the degree it helps me understand the critters themselves. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labyrinthodontia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930202110/http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/tetropodevol.pdf to http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/tetropodevol.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726153331/http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2008/12/28/the-flip-up-skull-of-gerrothorax/ to http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2008/12/28/the-flip-up-skull-of-gerrothorax/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labyrinthodontia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612063815/http://www.mnhn.fr/publication/geodiv/g95n1a16.html to http://www.mnhn.fr/publication/geodiv/g95n1a16.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/tatner/biomedia/subunits/subcl98.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labyrinthodontia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119074700/http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/icm055v1 to http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/icm055v1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"Origin of amphibians" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Origin of amphibians. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14#Origin of amphibians until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"Lungs derived from the swim bladders of their ancestors"

On the contrary: the bladder is thought to be derived from lungs. The given source is inaccessible, but, for example, "Comparative Vertebrate Morphology" by Webster and Webster, 1974, p.372: "the teleost gas bladder represents not a precursor of the lung but a more adaptive modification of it. This is the view most generally accepted by biologists today". Some sources doubt in their homology, but I have seen no sources which derive lungs from the bladder. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)