Talk:Crustacean

Geology

Added ==Geological history== text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.

Dlloyd 20:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are : "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this. Dlloyd 00:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have re-written the geological history section, so the copyright notice above no longer applies. --Stemonitis 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Crustacea

Since all the other higher taxa use the scientific name (Malacostraca, Remipedia) rather than the adjective (malacostracan, remipede), I suggest that crustacean be moved to Crustacea, for consistency. Stemonitis 12:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

• Support, for the reasons noted above Stemonitis 12:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, use common names for animals - malacostracan etc are not common names, crustacean is. Warofdreams 12:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a pretty clearcut case of using the name most common among all English speakers, not just scientists. Now if "crustacean" were an imprecise term not 100% identical with "Crustacea", there would be more of a case. Stan 13:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The word crustacean should forward to the 'Crustacea' page, but as far as an official title, Crustacea seems most appropriate. Regardless, we should have an overall policy for high-level taxonomic groups with common names. For example, would 'vertebrate' or 'Vertebrata' be appropriate? Iancrose 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think the overall policy for high-level taxonomic groups should be to use common names whenever possible, even when the common name may have meanings not denoted by the scientific name (e.g. loosely referring to spiders as "insects"). A-giau 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to spiders as insects is not "loose"; it's just plain wrong. I don't care how many books do it — it's wrong. Anyway, the title here was fixed long ago. --Stemonitis 09:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

100% agree with Stemonitis. "Maybe we should also start loosely referring to mammals as frogs." This is an encyclopedia. You want to teach people about real stuff, not urban myths... Lycaon 09:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Support."Crustacean," however, is a common word. It would be helpful if the page redirected from "crustacean," especially for those who aren't familiar with the scientific name. As long as it redirects from "crustacean," moving to Crustacea is fine with me.Crustaceanguy 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. -- Lycaon 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Note: This poll ended years ago. You may want to start a new move request (although I doubt it would succeed), but there is absolutely no point in voting here. --Stemonitis 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Layout Problem in Firefox

Would someone report this to someone who does something with the basic Wikipedia layout coding (a mysterious individual perhaps hanging out with the Mahdi).

In OSX Firefox 2 (at least), the "Edit" links for each section are appearing all together in a line, superimposed over the text in the "Geological History" section.

This is something which I've seen occurring in other articles and is probably related to right-hand column items being longer that the section where the code for them appears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.228.109 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The problem also appears in other browsers, and is quite widespread where a number of images line up down the right hand side. I have added a table around them all, which solves the problem, but will make the article harder to edit for anyone unfamiliar with Wiki-markup — the real text now begins rather later in the edit window. --Stemonitis 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Furry lobster song

According to the Furry lobster article, the song "Furry Old Lobster" references otters, not achelate crustaceans. If it is not about furry lobsters, why should the "In popular culture" section be there at all? I suggest we remove it, unless someone can provide a valid source of furry lobsters being referenced in popular culture.--Crustaceanguy (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Despite this being given a great rating and what not, I believe that under current cladistics (including other articles on wikipedia itself) Crustacea is not a subphylum at all. It is currently listed as a class under subphylum Mandibulata. I won't change this just yet as I don't have my resources with me at the moment, but do please investigate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarnbell333 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move, in keeping with our naming convention that we title articles using the common name used in English.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Crustacean → Crustacea — For consistency, this article should be moved. I agree with the reasons for the move request made in 2005. There were some people who opposed the move, on the basis that the word "crustacean" is used more in everyday language than "crustacea," but why not just put a redirect from Crustacean to Crustacea? See above. 63.228.104.161 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This group of articles (names of classes, phyla, etc.) is already inconsistent, and for good reason. Where a common English term exists, we should use it; it supercedes the technical scientific term. For examples, see Arthropod (not Arthropoda), Arachnid (not Arachnida), and Insect (not Insecta)Erudy (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose use Crustaceans instead per WP:COMMONNAME 70.29.210.174 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. Time to also move Arthropod, Arachnid, and Insect. Common names are only 'common' with people that know the scientific name, so there is no rationale to go for that 'so-called' common name. Lycaon (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Lycaon's post demonstrates the absurdities to which this line of argument can reach. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the reasons already given above: the common name is the best. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

over half of animals in the world?

I moved the following sentence to the talk page:

Over half of animals in the world are marine copepod crustaceans.

Largest Arthropod?

It is claimed that the Tasmanian crab is the largest arthropod in the world, but the Japanese Spider Crab is over twice the weight.72.231.248.182 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the problems with the sentence: first it doesn't make any sense grammatically, second, it doesn't say by what measure, volume? mass? number of individuals? Worst of all, it is unreferenced. Such a bold claim certainly needs a very reliable source.--345Kai (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Crustacean/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.

1. Although it is not required by GA criteria (so it will not be a requirement for the review), it would be beneficial to add alt text to the images. See WP:ALT for assistance.

 Done (mostly). I have added alt texts to all the main images. I haven't added one to the anatomical diagram, or to the purely decorative Haeckel images, partly because I wasn't sure how useful such a description would be, but mostly just because it seemed really difficult. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

2. The lead is long enough to support the article, but for a better balance move some of the sentences from the first paragraph to the second. It looks awkward with the large paragraph followed by the brief one. In addition, the lead should not introduce other information that is not covered in the article. So the information about the carcinology should also be mentioned elsewhere as well.

The lead has been unified by Stemonitis. The information about carcinology etc would best be portrayed in a section on etymology. While the rest of the lead reflects the rest of the text in the spirit of WP:LEAD, IMHO it seems excessive to create a seperate section for etymology as it would contain just a couple of sentences. One odd fact may be kept in the lead without disturbing the balance of the rest of the article. AshLin (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

3. "Crustaceans are among the most successful animals..." Successful in terms of what?

 Done I have reworded this as "ubiquitous", in an attempt to convey that the ecological breadth of the two groups is similar, and that they fill similar roles in the two environments. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

4. For all of the inline citations, instead of formatting them as "word [1].", they should be formatted as "word.[1]". Be sure to fix all occurrences for consistency.

 Done (This issue is still the subject of argument at WT:FN, so I'm not sure it should be a GA requirement.) --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two preferred methods of having it before or after the punctuation, and they are both allowed if used consistently. However for this article, the sentence was followed by a gap and then the citation followed by the punctuation. That spacing looked awkward and caused some of the citations and punctuation to appear on a separate line. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Throughout the article there are several one or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph to improve the flow of the article.

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

6. "The scientific study of these crustaceans is known as carcinology." Carcinology does not need to be bolded here, just the article's name.

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

7. I tagged File:2005crustacean.PNG to be moved to Commons. If you have an account there, consider moving the image over so that other language Wikipedias can use the image.

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

8. The paragraphs within the "Structure" section should all be sourced. In addition, so should the "Fossil record" and "Consumption by man" sections. Source any statement that a reader who has no knowledge of the topic may question.

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

9. "There is some doubt whether this is a derived state, as had been traditionally assumed..." Assumed by who?

 Done – that clause has been removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

10. Is it possible to find a more recent stat for the "10,000,000 tons were produced in 2005" figure (along with the other stats in the paragraph)?

 Done. The FAO has only published up to 2007 so far, but I've included that. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

11. If possible, see if any additional external links can be found to support the article for readers who would like to pursue further information on the topic.

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I fear it will take me more than a week at my current rate, but rest assured that I am working on it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I went through and made some minor changes, please review my edits. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to update some of the older access dates for the citations. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on wording

Is it right to say "More than 10 million tons of crustaceans are produced by fishery or farming for human consumption, the majority of it being shrimps and prawns."? That makes it sound like the fisheries are raising these animals as in fish farms. Or is that what this is trying to say? If not, I don't think this is the right wording since "crustaceans" is not the name of the foodstuff, like, say, "cattle", but the name of the animal itself... and even if that is the case, unless I'm mistaken we still aren't birthing & raising them like cows, we're harvesting them... which would be like saying a deer hunter goes out into the woods to produce deer.

- SBee Jun 25, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.43 (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

They are indeed farmed, in large aquaculture facilities, as well as fished from the wild. See shrimp farm and freshwater prawn farm for further details (we haven't got articles yet on crayfish farming or aquaculture of crabs or lobsters [sensu lato]). --Stemonitis (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Antennae

This article states "Crustacean appendages are typically biramous, meaning they are divided into two parts; this includes the second pair of antennae, but not the first, which is uniramous." This is referenced to #9, but the source does not in fact mention whether the antennae are biramous or uniramous. However my "Invertebrate Zoology" by Ruppert, Fox & Barnes states of Malacostraca, a class of Crustacea, "The first antennae are often biramous." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The way I read it - all appendages of crustacea including the second antennae but excluding the first antennae are biramous. The first antennae are uniramous. AshLin (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stemonitis: who is knowledgeable about crustaceans is requested to comment

This contradicts my "Invertebrate Zoology" book and also this source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Google Book inaccessible in India & also seems to deal only with Malacostraca. Anyway, I have no authoritative source & I'm no expert on Crustacea. AshLin (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found a source & clarified the situation (with verifiable reference). Please revert if anyone finds my edit faulty. 13:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Respiratory system?

This page could be improved with reference to the type of respiratory system of crustaceans. Decent but complex start point: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144848/crustacean/33808/The-digestive-system#toc33810 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.28.239 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

summarize the page, help the reader grasp the topic

I'm taking information from the page and summarizing it in the lead, so I didn't expect any controversy. But someone took issue with this addition:

Barnacles (Maxillopoda) comprise one class of crustaceans. Most crustacean species, including all familiar ones from crabs to wood lice, are in the class Malacostraca.

Here's the editor's explanation: diff

If there's problem with the barnacles line, then let's come up with some other helpful information. The lead should summarize the page and create interest in the topic. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you'd look in the taxobox, you'll notice that barnacles, i.e., Thecostraca, is not synonymous with Maxillopoda, which comprises of at least half a dozen other subclasses. Stating that barnacles are Maxillopoda is tantamount to saying that Japan is Asia.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Phylogeny and classification

In my view the article doesn't adequately reflect the current scientific consensus that crustaceans are paraphyletic, since hexapods evolved from within them. This is mentioned, but doesn't seem to be taken very seriously. "Crustacean" has to be treated as a term like "dinosaur" or "ape": very useful descriptively, but not as a classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the trouble is that, although that paraphyly is widely accepted, there has been a reluctance to formalise it in a classification. "Crustacea" is still used as a taxon to exclude the hexapods, and any competing taxonomies have yet to gain much traction among carcinologists. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I take your point re a formal classification; it will be interesting to see whether there ever is a formal rank-based classification which is widely accepted, or whether (as with say angiosperms or indeed eukaryotes as a whole) higher ranks are effectively abandoned in favour of clades.

My point, though, is that when I skim through the relevant parts of the article, I just don't get the sense that, since at least Regier et al. (2005), 11 years ago now (and even longer if you go back to the earlier work around 2000), study after study has upheld the paraphyly of the crustaceans, increasingly so since Regier et al. (2010), and there's been no sustained alternative to this view. The problem for me is that when there are links to Crustacea from articles about arthropod clades, such as Pancrustacea or Mandibulata, for example, they seem inconsistent if not contradictory. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The paraphyly certainly is widely accepted, and we probably don't make that point strongly enough in the article (partly because it was mostly written at least 5 years ago). Do you have a concrete proposal for improving it? --Stemonitis (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

One suggestion: Rather than listing "Subphylum: Crustacea" under the Scientific Classification, which suggests that the group is monophyletic (only monophyletic groups can receive a rank), we could say something like "Paraphyletic group" of "Informal group (paraphyletic)"? MathEvo (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crustacean. 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://archive.is/20120710135634/http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/425 to http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/425
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323043021/http://www.aquarium.org/JapaneseSpiderCrabs.asp to http://www.aquarium.org/JapaneseSpiderCrabs.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327060920/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Crustacea to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Crustacea

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) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crustacean. 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/20140511155231/http://www.fisheries.is/ecosystem/marine-life/benthic-animals/ to http://www.fisheries.is/ecosystem/marine-life/benthic-animals/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717055819/http://sabella.mba.ac.uk/16/01/Note_on_the_Function_of_the_Spines_of_the_Crustacean_Zooea.pdf to http://sabella.mba.ac.uk/16/01/Note_on_the_Function_of_the_Spines_of_the_Crustacean_Zooea.pdf

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) 09:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

egg

Hello, this article seems (almost?) the only article explaining the way crustecean multiply, which is with eggs. Many suborder have their own distinct way off reproducing yet that knowledge is mostly missing, in many languages on many wiki's. I hope more research results can be used for understanding crusteceans and how they multiply 85.149.83.125 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation

Article Evaluation The lead section is detailed, the opeing sentence both concisely and accurately describes the topic of the page. Despite the lead section's detail it goes into specifics that take away from the overview of the article. The portion on the japanese spider crab is out of place and off topic. It distracts from the rest of the section. Jacksondenny82 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead is full of very technical details and terminology that make it almost incomprehensible to this non-specialist. It plunges into detailed distinctions and connections without ever saying what a "crustacean" is. Zaslav (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Article is outdated and inaccurate

It's been almost 20 years since Crustacea was abandoned as a paraphyletic classification (in favor of Pancrustacea), yet this article still presents it as if it were accepted science. They now (correctly) teach in elementary school that butterflies are crustaceans, yet Wikipedia still hasn't caught on. This problem was highlighted by Peter coxhead way back in 2016 (see above), yet it doesn't seem like anything was done about it. This article either needs to be merged with Pancrustacea or changed into an article about the non-scientific concept of non-hexapod crustaceans. If you're waiting for someone to formally synonymize Crustacea with Pancrustacea, it's probably never going to happen. Unlike with species and genera, higher level taxons are commonly just abandoned these days since cladistic taxonomies are very difficult to map onto Linnaean taxonomies and scientists don't care about Linnaean taxonomy any more (unlike Wikipedia).
Which of these options do people prefer?
A. Merge this article with Pancrustacea.
B. Change this into an article about the non-scientific concept of non-hexapod crustaceans.
C. Something else
Nosferattus (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I favour some variant of (B). The group, known for years now to be paraphyletic, is sufficiently important historically and in informal use to have an article, but most of the content should be merged into Pancrustacea. It's a major task, but one that I (predictably) agree is long overdue. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• I agree for also B), too--Mr Fink (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• C I favour updating this article to reflect a more inclusive concept of Crustacea, as used at WoRMS. They use Crustacea as a more inclusive group including Hexapods. The note on status at Pancrustacea explains that they use Crustacea (over Pancrustacea or Tetraconata) "as the accepted name, being the oldest, most widely used and best established name". In the taxonomic hierarchy, Hexapoda is included as a class in Allotriocarida, one of the three superclasses making up subphylum Crustacea.

Pancrustacea was proposed as a taxon containing the crustaceans and hexapods as sister taxa, so is arguably a different concept. Pan- is typically used for a taxon embracing the named group and closely related taxa, as in the original Crustacea + Hexapoda formulation or Panarthropoda (which includes phyla closelyy related to arthropods), or many pan-taxa that include stem taxa plus the crown group. The situation is similar to Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla, where the latter became popular when the close relationship was first recovered, but the older name ended up being used in a more inclusive sense when the deep nesting relationship was established. Osteichthyes is another example where the older paraphyletic group has been redefined to be more inclusive (in this case, of the tetrapods).

In some ways, the article already uses the more inclusive definition (e.g. in the classes table). However, as so often happens, sections of the article get updated without corresponding changes elsewhere (see recent discussion at Talk:Artiodactyla. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: So it sounds like you want to merge Pancrustacea with Crustacea, but have it live at the name "Crustacea". Is that correct? Nosferattus (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I strongly recommend B. The common notion of a crustacean should not be muddled up with technical distinctions that happen to be different. The latter should be explained but not confused with the main idea of what "everyone" thinks a crustacean is. Butterflies are crustaceans? No way, for this article. That should be in a different article with a different purpose. Zaslav (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)