Talk:Craniate
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Surely this isn't true? -see hagfishFayefox20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
someone shouold add the link tohttp://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 toHolocephali, a subclass ofChondrichthyes. 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)[reply]
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"?—Precedingunsigned comment added by85.8.12.78 (talk)11:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the hagfish is not a true vertebrate and thus cannot be considered a true fish."-Evolutions,Diversity and Ecology,(Vol.3) Author-Brooker.—Precedingunsigned comment added by129.171.233.78 (talk)00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you surehagfish (myxini) aren'tvertebrates? My book says: "Hagfish have at times been excluded from thevertebrates because they have only vestiges of avertebral column.However, recentmolecular studies confirm that they are related to the otherjawless fish, thelampreys.Reptiles,birds, andmammals (as well asamphibians, of which there are nomarine species) areinformally grouped together as tetrapods (tetrapoda) within the larger [informal] group ofjawed vertebrates (Gnathostomata), which also includefish." (An ocean book I have, emphasis added.)Charizardmewtwo (talk)14:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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:
Any comments on this?--Jules (Mrjulesd)20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)23:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The cladogram is inconsistent with the three cited sources. It has ostracoderms and placoderms but the sources are all genomic studies obviously lacking in information about extinct groups. Either they are removed from the cladogram or more sources are used. Its current state is original research.Kiwi Rex (talk)00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
