Template talk:Taxonomy/Tetrapoda

|always_display=

I've reverted this edit since historically we've not included this globally on all tetrapod taxoboxes. The change would affect every single mammal, bird, reptile, et cetera, and the change would have an effect on the visual output. Therefore, I'd say if the parameter is set to true for this particular minor rank taxon, it ought to be discussed first by all relevant WikiProjects. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for change of interwiki

Could someone please modify the mk interwiki to

[[mk:Шаблон:Автотаксономија/Четириношци]]

. Thanks a alot! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Skip template

Linking the parent to teleosts seems odd and uninformative of the actual parent clades. Why not use a skip template to link it to a dummy version of Elpistostegalia, as here? [1] This will allow the taxobox to display the correct parent without forcing all the fish supertaxa into tetrapod taxoboxes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change

The taxobox for the Tetrapod article doesn't look right. I think it should go something like this:

Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata (jawed fishes / jawed vertebrates)
Superclass: Osteichthyes (bony fishes / bony vertebrates)
Class: Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes / fleshy-limbed vertebrates)
Subclass: Rhipidistia (Dipnotetrapodomorpha)
Clade: Tetrapodomorpha

The first three (from top to bottom) should be familiar to most people. The last three are less familiar, but are the immediate supertaxons of Tetrapoda; in effect, stepping stones to the more familiar ones above. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

I do not understand the format nor read the instructions on how to do so, so I did it like this I just want to add "Class = Reptilia" in the taxinomic account of Monitor Lizar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.214 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for change of parent

Could someone change the parent to Tetrapodomorpha?

{{Don't edit this line {{{machine code|}}}
|rank=superclassis
|link=Tetrapod|Tetrapoda
|parent=Tetrapodomorpha
}}

The current link to Teleostomi skips a half-dozen important branches. Thanks!—wing gundam 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As the classification hierarchy stands, this can't be done, because it would generate the sequence of ranks:

Superclass: Osteichthyes

Class: Sarcopterygii

Clade: Rhipidistia

Clade: Tetrapodomorpha

Superclass: Tetrapoda

i.e. a superclass with a class and another superclass above it. The underlying problem is that sourced systems used in different areas of the tree of life are not compatible with one another, so we have to make compromises to fit them together. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I propose changing the parent for Sarcopterygii to Euteleostomi rather than Osteichthys in order to solve this issue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2024

Teleostomi is a polyphyletic group and therefore isn't valid Ankylodactylus27 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 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. It is probably better to post your thoughts at Talk:Teleostomi or Talk:Tetrapod. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

I want to include "Stegocephali" Ruasonrac (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Stegocephalia had been included as the parent with [this edit] back in 2018. It was then reverted back to Teleostomi in 2023 with the edit summary, "change creates inconsistent ranks: superclass has superclass as parent; needs more thought". Editor Ruasonrac, you might try building a consensus at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Superclass or clade?

To editor Jts1882: I'm not sure that the change from superclass to clade is correct. Perhaps it is for Osteichthyes, but is it also true in this case? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

What source would make tetrapoda a superclass? It would need to be a comprehensive one embracing fish taxonomy rather than one just including terrestrial vertebrates for consistency across articles. We know it is a well-established clade (which is why I went for clade rather than unranked), but the rank is very dependent on the taxonomy used and many classifications no longer use a rank. For instance, FotW5 uses infraclass, which would obviously be inappropriate for classifications of extant terrestrial vertebrates in the traditional classes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, editor Jts1882, for your helpful info. I've searched and found several sources that refer to Tetrapoda as a superclassis or superclass, and I only found two that called it a clade. Included in the sources that call it superclassis is our own Wikispecies. So I don't know. I think I'll call two of our own taxonomy people, editors Plantdrew and Peter coxhead, to light this one up for us. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The classification on Wikispecies allows the same rank to appear multiple times in the hierarchy; for a time they had class Aves within class Reptilia.

There is a review of the use of the name "Tetrapoda" that doesn't take a position on its rank at doi:10.1080/02724634.2019.1564758 (Wikipedia Library link).

I suspect Wikispecies is following the Ruggiero classification, at least in part. That is a fully ranked (no unranked clades) monophyletic classification of all taxa down to the rank of order. It achieves monophyly by completely ignoring extinct taxa. In the Ruggiero classification, Sarcopterygii and Tetrapoda are both superclasses in infraphylum Gnathostomata (and birds are one of five subclasses in class Reptilia). The Ruggiero classification is used by some other taxonomic databases (Ruggiero works for ITIS), but is unsuitable for Wikipedia since we do cover extinct taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 February 2025

Change parent Teleostomi to Stegocephali. Jako96 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This template has over 70,000 transclusions so we should be careful of any change. It does seem strange that it jumps all the way to Teleostomi, which makes me think there is a reason. Often there are alternative taxonomy templates when we don't want lots of obscure taxa in taxoboxes of extant species. I don't see a problem in this case (the extra taxa shouldn't be displayed) but I need to check that there won't be unintended consequences before I make the change.

Btw, please give sources for the required taxonomic changes. We're trying to be stricter on requiring a reference in taxonomy templates, which unfortunately most of these higher vertebrate taxa template don't included.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems this change was made in 2018. To avoid two superclasses in the hierarchy, the parent of Sarcopterygii was changed to Euteleostomi (which must be invalid if Teleostomi is). When this was changed to Osteichthyes in 2023 this introduced the superclass conflict and the 2018 change reverted. I think both Tetrapoda and Osteichthyes should be shown in the hierarchy, but both can't use superclass. Without sources showing why one should be preferred at that rank, I think it better to leave both unranked (or as clade). I agree Stegocephali should be the parent, but this needs a sourced resolution considering the other templates as well, so editors don't make future changes without appropriate sources.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The Stegocephali article refers to Stegocephali sensu Laurin 2020, which I suspect refers to the Phylocode reference, specifically Chapter Stegocephali, but I can't access that description.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Laurin's definition of Stegocephali is apparently "The largest clade that includes Eryops megacephalus Cope 1877 (Temnospondyli) but not Tiktaalik roseae Daeschler et al. 2006, Panderichthys rhombolepis Gross 1930 (Panderichthyidae), and Eusthenopteron foordi Whiteaves 1881 (Osteolepiformes)." (see RegNum). Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ranking Tetrapoda as a Superclass

I think that Tetrapoda should be ranked as a superclass. Sources:

Correction: A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms | PLOS One

IRMNG - Tetrapoda

Superclass Tetrapoda - Hierarchy - The Taxonomicon

ITIS - Report: Tetrapoda Jako96 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose there is something to be said for having a reference for this template (which currently doesn't have any reference). But I don't think the Ruggiero classification is really usable for Wikipedia. It is "monophyletic" which it achieves by ignoring any extinct taxa (dinosaurs aren't included anywhere), and arbitrarily assigning ranks to some traditionally recognized taxa that are known to be paraphyletic, while also skipping/ignoring various well supported clades (e.g. amniotes). ITIS just follows Ruggiero. The Taxonomicon supports multiple classifications; the one linked here is the Systema Naturae 2000 classifciation which apparently treats Tetrapoda as a clade in superclass Gnathostomata (while displaying superclass Tetrapoda as an alternative). Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I know but maybe we can use Ruggiero for Tetrapoda only? And I think we really HAVE TO give a rank to Tetrapoda. Oh, and also BioLib uses superclass for it too: Tetrapoda (four-limbed vertebrates) | BioLib.cz Jako96 (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Request— Can someone please place Osteichthyes > Sarcopterygia > Tetrapodomorpha between Teleostomi and Tetrapoda?

Eliahavah (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Done (see below). In future please provide sources for such changes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal of changing the parent to Stegocephali

I propose to change the parent to Stegocephali, following this source. Jako96 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The source is a PhD thesis; can you find a better source? Current parent is Teleostomi, which is described as obsolete in its article. Template:Taxonomy/Teleostomi should have no children if it is obsolete. Template:Taxonomy/Stegocephali has Tetrapodomorpha and Sarcopterygii always displaying; we don't want those to display down to the species level for extant tetrapods. We will need a skip template somewhere if the parent of Tetrapoda is changed. I do think it should be changed somehow; it should be possible to navigate from tetrapod to Tetrapodomorpha via taxoboxes, but again, a skip template needs to be in there so that Tetrapodomorpha doesn't display all the way down to species (or always display needs to be turned off). Plantdrew (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I will find a better source. Jako96 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I found a better source: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12751 Jako96 (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. It is based on Laurin's Phylocode definition mentioned in the 20 February edit request above, but the source you've provided makes it explicit that Stegocephali includes Tetrapoda, which the Phylocode doesn't (although the 2004 publication by Vallin and Laurin cited in Regnum might be more explicit). Plantdrew (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The current parent of Teleostomi without a reference is very poor, so virtually any sourced change is an improvement. Perhaps both Laurin's phylocode and the Abel & Werneburg review can both be used as the reference.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I made an edit request. Jako96 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but you made it without providing a supporting reference. There are since been a similar request. I've made the change now with the two references. Perhaps we can find a better reference but the change is an improvement on the current unsourced (and uninformative parent).  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 July 2025

Change the parent to Stegocephali per consensus. Jako96 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)