Etymology Anthro  man  pod  foot  So Anthropod means mans foot   It is arthro and not anthro   arthro means joint  Preceding unsigned comment added by        cant pod also mean leg  Preceding unsigned comment added by        Ill get started on an Anthropod article I searched and there actually isnt one Then we can compare the two     I really have no expertise on this subject whatsoever but doesnt Anthropod refer to a totally different species Correct me if Im wrong but it seems to me that there is a common confusion of Arthropod and Anthropodhttpenwiktionaryorgwikianthropod 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      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 professors gospel to his class  Ive 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  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 Bs particular scheme differs from ITIS in a defined way it is  generation removed from ITIS  A similar situation applies if Cs scheme differs in defined way from ITIS  However if C defines his scheme with reference to Bs then he is  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 cladists 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 doesnt mean that there can be no exceptions to this rule  Cf WikipediaIgnore 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 Im no expert Ive 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  Yes  were is it generally accepted I was taught that trilobites were a class of Arthropods and my animal biology text from  confirms this Has something changed since my freshman year of college