"==Etymology==
Anthro = man

-pod = foot

So Anthropod means man's foot?
 
It is arthro and not anthro.  
arthro means joint  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs)  

can't pod also mean leg?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs)  

Ill get started on an Anthropod article (I searched, and there actually isn't one). Then we can compare the two.   

I really have no expertise on this subject whatsoever, but doesn't 'Anthropod' refer to a totally different species? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there is a common confusion of Arthropod and Anthropodhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropod (at least on Google). In that case it would be (as it was for me) highly irritating to refer one page to the other. Or am I missing something? Sebowsky  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.56.102   

Taxonomic table

Setting up the table has already caused one fair comment to be raised about what happens to the taxon Uniramia.  My visits to various sites on the Net has taught me that the situation about the higher classification of the arthropods is chaotic.  Valid arguments could be made for any of many of these schemes.  The disturbing thing is that many of these different schemes appear on ""dot edu"" where they are presented as a professor's gospel to his class.

I've probably already left the impression that, right or wrong, I have a preference to the ITIS scheme, and by extension (since ITIS is focused on North America) looking at the ""Species 2000"" where applicable.  I tend to use these on a ""without prejudice"" basis that recognizes the difficulties inherent in having bureaucrats control the science.  This view treats ITIS as a reference point, and nothing more.  If a person B's particular scheme differs from ITIS in a defined way it is 1 generation removed from ITIS.  A similar situation applies if C's scheme differs in defined way from ITIS.  However, if C defines his scheme with reference to B's then he is 2 generations removed from the reference point.  String a few schemes in a row, and you begin to lose perspective on the subject.

Cladists have a stated vision of some day being rid of Linnean ranks altogether.  Given the uncertainty that often arises from guessing whether a particular taxon is a class or an order, I can sympathize with that view.  But without ranks the cladist's tree sometimes lacks good climbing branches where you can place your feet as you go up.  

I think that if we can maintain some consistency in using the primary KPCOFGS rankings, we can have more flexibility with the secondary rankings.  There is already some degree of acceptance that in most cases only primary ranks will appear in what was the ""Placement"" list, and what is now the top part of the tables.  That doesn't mean that there can be no exceptions to this rule.  (Cf. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules)

So, to get back on topic, higher arthropod classification is confused!  But there remains that if we want anything about the subject on Wikipedia, we absolutely need to deal with the confusion.  Here then is where I see things as standing between phylum and class in the Arthropoda:  
The trilobites (not listed in ITIS) are a phylum with a single class, and that fact appears generally accepted - no problem.  

""Generally accepted""? Granted, I'm no expert (I've read a book about trilobytes, is all), but a quick google on ""trilobite phylum"" got me lots of assertions that trilobites are part of arthropoda. And trying ""trilobyte classification"" got me a claim that there are eight classes of trilobytes. Vicki Rosenzweig
Yes - were is it generally accepted? I was taught that trilobites were a class of Arthropods and my animal biology text from 1996 confirms this. Has something changed since my freshman year of college? maveric149