Order of Pterygota (again)

Well, right now Raphidioptera and Megaloptera are ate the end of the list, after leaf mines, etc., which makes no sense. All the references I have seen place these two next to neuroptera sensu strictu, or whatever. See, for instance, ITIS which puts all three in a superorder Neuropterida, with the orders listed in this sequence:
1-Megaloptera
2-Neuroptera
3-Raphidioptera

Tree of Life has them in this sequence, all on one branch, right before the coleoptera:
1-Megaloptera
2-Raphidioptera
3-Neuroptera

I have put them together following the TOL sequence (see Insecta tree). But there are no worries--the reorder nodes feature in taxonomy view makes changing the sequence of orders a 10-second job if anyone disagrees. The hard work was moving the nodes and editing the guides--good work.

jumped the gun, but there has been quite a bit of discussion that both Apterygota [only had two orders anyway] and Pterygota were paraphyletic, additionally there was general agreement that under Phylum should be only class, under class only orders [fewer layers to browse through] with detailed classification discussion placed under the corresponding info tab. thread Pterygota was just another layer of dubious value. I left it in [empty], in case anyone wanted to copy out any of the references.
I'll add it back if enough people care. Easily done. I'm of the view that the Browse mode should be as simple and consistent as possible. These things tend to just sit, so I went for it.
I couldn't fix Entognatha - that'll take a higher power.

Right, I see the virtues of flattening the taxonomy a bit. I just thought there should be some discussion of this change.

I copied out the discussion text and references from the Pterygota page and saved it to disk.

Any thoughts on sequence of orders and/or how to maintain an order we all agree on? Do you like the "no taxon" spacers? (I feel they are clunky, but can't think of anything better, and feel there should be some indication of the higher groups.) Should there be a "no taxon" spacer above the orders of winged insects?

I left your seq. of orders. I'll have to think about whether there is better, but seems OK as is for now. I really like the idea of headers, but you're right - the no taxon method is a little clunky. Maybe John can add 'header' in the pull down list - maybe make it look different and if you click on it - all you get is info or disable the link altogether. There have been many instances where I would like to add a tribe, etc, but didn't want to create another layer. These could really be useful. I don't have a strong opinion about a no taxon header over the 'winged' orders [many of which don't have wings]. Maybe a totally artificial arrangement would work - with the winged orders under one and all the non winged under another, including things that would normally fall under Pterygota like lice.

Like you said - let's see what other opinions are out there. I've caused enough trouble for one day.

As you point out many of these changes have been proposed in several of the forum threads (three of them are just under this one) and have received favorable comments. This certainly simplifies yet organizes things. We still have work to do on the orders for the springtails etc. and the lice, but John will have to do some of that. We look forward to the finished product!

Patrick, we like the spacers but wish they could just be headers, as Phillip points out, without any links to an info page, maybe a different color or font without the No Taxon words in front of them. But we'll have to wait till John says what is possible. That might solve some of the questions Robin brings up below. A way to organize without complicating the Browse feature. We're excited to see where this goes.

Thanks, Phillip, I had been following, barely, the discussion about Apterygota, but had simply not realized that the elimination of that as a taxonomic group would entail eliminating Pterygota as well. Now that I look at the discussion in more detail, I see that it is a good idea to list the orders of Insecta, in some sort of taxonomic sequence, and not have any subclasses--it will make for a much cleaner guide.

So count me in on the elimination of Pterygota. I think the divider, should, perhaps, still be linked to an article--maybe the current one can simply be adapted--I have all the text, which can be pasted into a no taxon node called "Pterygota--winged insects" or something like that.

I think the no taxon nodes are probably our best bet for implementing this sort of formatting for now, imperfect though they may be.

OK, this is where I wish BugGuide were a wiki, and the changes could just be reverted. I put them in this order, which is based on Arnett, repeated at Insects of Cedar Creek, though we have shuffled some groups:
1. Ephemeroptera - Mayflies
2. Odonata - Dragonflies and Damselflies
3. Plecoptera - Stoneflies
4. Embiidina - Webspinners
5. Phasmatodea - Walkingsticks
6. Orthoptera - Grasshoppers, Crickets, Katydids
7. Dermaptera - Earwigs
8. Dictyoptera - Mantids and Cockroaches
9. Isoptera - Termites
10. Zoraptera - Zorapterans
11. Psocoptera - Barklice and Booklice
12. Mallophaga - Chewing Lice
13. Anoplura - Sucking Lice
14. Hemiptera - True Bugs, Cicadas, Hoppers, Aphids and Allies
15. Thysanoptera - Thrips
16. Neuroptera - Antlions, Lacewings and Allies
17. Coleoptera - Beetles
18. Hymenoptera - Ants, Bees, Wasps and Sawflies
19. Trichoptera - Caddisflies
20. Lepidoptera - Butterflies and Moths
21. Mecoptera - Scorpionflies, Hangingflies and Allies
22. Diptera - Flies
23. Strepsiptera - Twisted-winged Insects
24. Siphonaptera - Fleas

I put a note on the guide page with links to these these discussions, and I'll put a note on the top level forum as well--maybe that will get the attention of whomever is doing this. Maybe we can put an alphabetical list in the Pterogyta page and that will satisfy both camps. I'll try to do that later today.

ending the list with a NO Taxon page which simply says "Do Not Rearrange these Orders". Seems like it would be inoffensive and helpful

I thought of suggesting that we go ahead and separate the orders into Neoptera/Paleoptera, but it appears that classification is now thought to be somewhat incorrect. Still, it seemed like some indication of the higher groups might be helpful in the tree. As a trial, I added three no taxon nodes as dividers among the groups of orders of Pterygota as follows:
No Taxon - Paleoptera -
Order Ephemeroptera - Mayflies
Order Odonata - Dragonflies and Damselflies
No Taxon - Neoptera > Exopterygota -
Order Plecoptera - Stoneflies
Order Embiidina - Webspinners
...
No Taxon - Neoptera > Endopterygota -
Order Neuroptera - Antlions, Lacewings and Allies
Order Coleoptera - Beetles
...

These no taxon nodes can be removed easily if people object. I like the idea, because it shows the groups in the tree but does not require major reshuffling of the orders and the creation of new taxonomic levels that interfere with browsability. (I think the no taxon nodes show the divisions very nicely in browse and taxonomy views.) We can add a brief discussion of the higher level groups under each of those--and I did a bit already.

Comments?

I don't like the changes for these reasons:

1. dead-end navigation - The Taxonomy tab is very useful for navigating up and down the tree, but the No Taxon nodes you propose are equivalent to dead-end streets. People who click them would likely be confused at finding nowhere to go (except back) and no photos to view when they click the Images tab.

2. additional obscure names - The four new names (Paleoptera, Neoptera, Exopterygota, Endopterygota) would be appropriate in discussions of taxonomic relationships on Info pages, but I think their incorporation into the structure of the Guide would be a stumbling block to navigation.

3. mix-and-match messiness - Since the list of Order nodes would appear (to a beginner) to be arranged in no particular sequence, we shouldn't expect a beginner to attach any significance to the placement of the No Taxon nodes. An Order-only list would be simpler and less messy than a mixed list.

These are very good points. Understand that I am only trying to put something in place to maintain the sequence of orders in something like a taxonomic sequence, which seems to be the consensus. It is a real pain to re-order the nodes, and I have done it three times now.

1. dead-end navigation - The Taxonomy tab is very useful for navigating up and down the tree, but the No Taxon nodes you propose are equivalent to dead-end streets. People who click them would likely be confused at finding nowhere to go (except back) and no photos to view when they click the Images tab.
1a-Explanatory text can be put in the Info pages, with links to the orders.
1b-A couple of composite photographs or diagrams can be uploaded under those no taxon nodes. The captions for the images can have links to the guide pages, or the included orders.

2. additional obscure names - The four new names (Paleoptera, Neoptera, Exopterygota, Endopterygota) would be appropriate in discussions of taxonomic relationships on Info pages, but I think their incorporation into the structure of the Guide would be a stumbling block to navigation.
The names are fairly widely used in entomology. Try the navigation--I think they hardly interfere at all. They take up almost no space in Taxonomy or Browse modes.

3. mix-and-match messiness - Since the list of Order nodes would appear (to a beginner) to be arranged in no particular sequence, we shouldn't expect a beginner to attach any significance to the placement of the No Taxon nodes. An Order-only list would be simpler and less messy than a mixed list.
Well, I don't think the order names mean much to a beginner either. Perhaps the "divider nodes" should have a bit of plain English text, such as "Insects with complete metamorphosis" for "Neoptera > Endopterygota". Perhaps the plain English text should be used instead of the terminology?

Again, this scheme is trying to come up with something to counter the messiness of arbitrarily re-ordered guides. Myself, I find a simple list of orders a bit hard to understand because there are too many--I need something to break them into manageable chunks.

with the 3 No Taxon nodes you've added, for reasons given previously.

I think it would be sufficient to have the terms Paleoptera, Neoptera, Exopterygota, and Endopterygota defined in the Glossary and/or on the Info page of Insecta.

Well, those were meant just to be a trial run. Luckily, since they were "no taxon" nodes, I was able simply to move them to the glossary. They are discussed on the Insecta page as well.

This still leaves open the question of how to maintain order of the orders, assuming the consensus is not to simply alphabetize them. I think the current order is useful, but I'm sure there are many differing opinions. Perhaps in the future there will be viewer-configurable options for lists of nodes.

and to protect all the work you have already done, Patrick, to add a NO Taxon page at the bottom of the list which simply says "Please Do Not Rearrange these Orders".

Good idea as a temporary measure.

OK, I reordered them, more-or-less. I wish we had the ability to revert a change, as is done on a Wiki. Oh well.

Plenty or room for work here--placement of several orders is just not clear.

OK, I think the consensus of this and other discussions was to simply list the orders of Insecta (in a sort-of taxonomic sequence) and to do away with Pterygota. Material from Pterygota has been moved to Insecta as of 5 June 2008. The Pterygota node can be deleted--I would do it, but the guide will not let me.

Also, for explanatory purposes, I added a glossary entry for Pterygota.

I'm pretty sure the problem is a handful of books and one link. This is apparently the same problem as with the Superclass Now Known As Delete.

Unfortunately, mere editors can't move or delete anyone else's books or links. You posted one of the books, but nothing can happen until the others are dealt with.