Talk:Craniate

"all craniates have skulls"

Surely this isn't true? -see hagfish Fayefox 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

someone shouold add the link to http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%A8%E5%A4%B4%E7%B1%BB

Hagfish spp. actually do have skulls, which are made of cartilage. They do not, however, have vertebrae, which is why they are considered craniates but not vertebrates. I added references attesting to the hagfish skull and generally including hagfish among the craniates. As for the recommendation to add a link to the Chinese language article, this appears to pertain only to Holocephali, a subclass of Chondrichthyes. Holocephali, and all chondrichthyans, are craniates, but these two articles are not equivalent because the Chinese article deals exclusively with one subclass. Myceteae (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Craniata includes all animals with a head"

In common parlance, "head" designates the business end of various non-craniate animals, such as the cephalic tagma of insects. For clarity, perhaps change either to "all chordates with a head" or "all animals with a cranium"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.12.78 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hagfish

"the hagfish is not a true vertebrate and thus cannot be considered a true fish."-Evolutions,Diversity and Ecology,(Vol.3) Author-Brooker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.78 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cephalochordata

Craniates sure don't belong to the cephalochordates, but I don't manage to figure out how to change it. Can someone do this please?

Best wishes,

Rikske V. (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hagfish

Are you sure hagfish (myxini) aren't vertebrates? My book says: "Hagfish have at times been excluded from the vertebrates because they have only vestiges of a vertebral column. However, recent molecular studies confirm that they are related to the other jawless fish, the lampreys. Reptiles, birds, and mammals (as well as amphibians, of which there are no marine species) are informally grouped together as tetrapods (tetrapoda) within the larger [informal] group of jawed vertebrates (Gnathostomata), which also include fish." (An ocean book I have, emphasis added.) Charizardmewtwo (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete?

@Al-Andalus: with the following edit [1], describing Craniata as obsolete rather than proposed. Have you got a reliable source to back this up? I see the following problems with this edit:

1. It seems for living animals that Craniata has become a synonym for Vertebrata. But does this make the clade obsolete? It is still a valid clade, but one with a synonym. Using this reasoning you could equally argue that Vertebrata was obsolete because of the presence of Craniata.
2. Things become murkier when you consider extinct animals, as groups like the Cephalaspidomorphi are generally agreed to be craniates; but evidence of also being vertebrates is inconclusive. This would suggest the Craniata are not obolete after all.
3. Scientific papers still regularly use the term craniata: on Google Scholar, in 2017, 83 papers use the term Craniata, and 47 use the term craniate. So it is in current scientific use.

Any comments on this? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Carcharodon carcharias drawing.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in this page

There was clearly a difference of opinions on the exact definiton of this group, which has also left its traces in the article. First there is a statement which says that hagfish are been found to be included in vertebrates, making craniates the same as vertebrates, but later under characteristics it seems to exclude hagfish again, making the article apperently contradict itself. I would suggest to rename Characteristics to History.

If hagfish are now again included into the vertrebrates, then for all extant species these groups are the same. Reading this talk page there appear to be diffentent opinions on whether this means that extinct groups are in-groups too, so it might be helpfull to discuss this in seperate section. If there really is no difference with vertebrates (if all extinct groups are also considered vertebrates, as this article says but apperently there are different opinions?), then this entire page has to be about explaining the history of the rise and fall of this clade (maybe call it "craniate hypothesis" like the article on the once almost universilly accepted Articulata) and all pages where craniates are mentiontioned shoud to be edited and links have to be redirected to vertebrates (as this is clearly the older and far more familiar term). Codiv (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)