Contents

Talk:Hexapoda

Hexapoda was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 23, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Uh I know this is weird but this one page is consistently crashing Firefox 3.011 (on Windows XP) at my office. I haven't tried at home yet.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.173.45 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this page back to Hexapoda; hardly anybody uses hexapod for insects, and Hexapoda more consistent with other arthropod subphyla. Also, far and away more linksd were to "Hexapoda" than "Hexapod"

An earlier version of this page followed every group name with the Latin equivalent, ranked and bolded. This is unnecessary, since the same information is presented in the taxobox, and more importantly breaks (chops) the sentence up with extremely eye-catching (noticeable) yet tangential information, making it next to impossible (extremely difficult) to read. In short, it ensures that less information is conveyed, rather than more. Please don't. Also, the whole repeating ranks thing is an extremely bad idea since it takes an article about a group and turns it into an article about one particular classification scheme. This is simplifying nearly to the point of falsehood. -- Josh

The hexapod group has been shown to be paraphyletic, with springtails having evolved independently of hexapods. The reference for this conclusion is as folllows:

Francesco Nardi, Giacomo Spinsanti, Jeffrey L. Boore, Antonio Carapelli, Romano Dallai & Francesco Frati (2003). Hexapod origins: monophyletic or paraphyletic?. Science 299: 1887–1889.

This article needs updating. Pancrustacea is more up-to-date. As of August 2012, it seems not to be definitely settled but:

• Traditional Crustacea is almost certainly paraphyletic with respect to hexapod groups (i.e. hexapods evolved from within crustaceans).
• Traditional Hexapoda is probably not monomonophyletic (i.e. different groups of hexapods probably evolved separately from within crustaceans).

Lots of references. A search in Google Scholar for "reciprocal paraphyly" is useful, since this term is often used to describe the Crustacea/Hexapoda relationship. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labium is called both "lower lip" and "upper lip" in the article. SyP (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The abdomen consists of eleven segments in all true insects (often reduced in number in many insect species)" What does this even mean? Also, it isn't sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.43.97 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, nonsensical material is subject to removal. The writer may have meant to say something else, but failed. Be bold!--Quisqualis (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hexapoda. 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/20050320010953/http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/5/748tohttp://www.mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/5/748

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]