Talk:Eumalacostraca

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marine life Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marine life To do:

Have a look at the Marine life WikiProject and sign up.

Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by The Marine life Wikiproject:

Collaboration of the week: Marine life article assessment
Other: See the projects page
Images: Upload any non-copyrighted marine life images to Wikimedia Commons
Featured Articles/Good Articles:
Other: Add {{Portal|Marine life}} to related articles

Merge with Malacostraca[edit]

I suggest merging this page with Malacostraca. Since the subclass Eumalacostraca contains almost all living malacostracans, their coverage differs only slightly, and the page seems somewhat redundant. --Crustaceanguy 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Support, for the reasons noted above. --Crustaceanguy 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvinced — it could be done, but I'm not sure that there is any need to. The circumscription of the two is quite different (even excluding fossils, Leptostraca, and probably Stomatopoda, are in one but not the other), and the defining characters and shared character states will (by definition) be quite different. The argument of near identity of coverage is not enough; Polyphaga contains almost all beetles; Eutheria contains almost all mammals; Neognathae contains almost all birds. It is probably the norm that at every node in a cladogram, one branch is much more diverse than the other. The articles are currently fairly short, but that's not because there isn't enough to say that could fill a longer article. Having short articles on taxa at subordinate ranks isn't really a problem, whereas cluttering up an article like Malacostraca with information of limited (or tangential) importance to it, is more of one, in my opinion. --Stemonitis 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support or at lest in part. If I wanted to read about the malacostraca, I would have to go through each single paragraph description thorugh the taxonomy? Yes, the Phyllocarida might not even be real malacostracans. I would like to add the differences between the orders, there is a page I saw about clearly the caridoid facies called decapod anatomy, as most grouping here are odd. mysidacea is a page (obsolete), yet the caprellida are following a very recent classification (2005). Btw, Lots of odd fossil info. Eumalacostraca go to Devonian, only Archaeostraca to the Cambrian, which makes that sentence odd. --Squidonius (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]