# Talk:Antennacanthopodia

This guy definitely needs to be re-looked at. The original paper said it had no claws, but I'm pretty sure I found two pairs on closeups of the sclerotized leg pads (Figures 6 and 7). The potential claws look like thin, conical projections and are around the same size as the preserved spines (which I'm guessing are dermal papillae). It's possible that I'm wrong and these are just papillae, but for that, someone would need to investigate the fossil.
There's also the whole not taking decay into account. What the paper labels as the original body cavity is actually just a void from the epidermis and outer cuticle separating. I know this kuz I wrote the decay section on the Onychophora#Insights on decay and fossilization section. 
Later me here, the authors of the decay paper literally wrote that in their discussion section. Not sure if I was being stupid or smart back there. Welp, new paper to add once i start yapping in the description section.
Now I'm wondering if this thing had jaws but those were missed too? RenaMoonn (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the edits!
About the stated isssues, since original research is not allowed, we could only write what had been formally stated in reliable literatures.
Also, I recommend to use the term "lobopodian" instead of "lobopod" to refer the whole animal/group, since recently the former is more common and the latter is also but now more specifically refer to their legs. Junnn11 (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Antennacanthopodia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: RenaMoonn (talk · contribs) 12:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 12:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting the GA review. Best of luck.
 — ZKevinTheCat

I've reviewed the article. In my view, it passes every criteria except for 1a: "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct", and 3a: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"
Issues
1a. While the article is overall fairly well written and is understandable, there are sections of the article that do not flow naturally. The biggest issue in this regard is in the classification section; it is out of place compared to the rest of the article. The text is short, and its sudden shift in tone from "casual" to a very technical was a little jaring. (see 3a. critiques) Other than this, there is nothing I would consider worthy of disqualification.
3a. Again, the main issue here is the classification section. Lobopods, and especially Antennacanthopodia, are very important to the understanding of early animal evolution and this article does not cover this subject enough. Explaining the evolutionary significance of this organism and where it could fit on the tree of life would help the reader understand why this subject is important and significant. Fixing this issue would also probably fix the issue with criteria 1a, that is, that section being short and jarring. A more substantial covering of the subject would fix both issues simultaniously.
Other suggestions
While the above two issues must be fixed, there are also less major issues that could be fixed. While I do believe the article is well written enough to qualify as a good article, there are some word choices that are awkward. One example of this sort of thing is the sentence: "Nonetheless, later studies reject this." in the "Trunk" section. The word "nonetheless", while grammatically correct, could be replaced with "however", which would flow better in my opinion. Or even better, saying something along the lines of "However, other studied interpereted the X as..." would transition into the next piece of information quite nicely.
One other thing I would do would be to add images to the cladograms or mark what the affinity of certain genera are. What I mean by this is that in some cases major clades of living organisms are bolded or specified when appropriate, but are not in other cases. Ooperipatellus and the other living genera of velvet worms are not indicated as such, and the crown arthropods featured in the second cladogram are also not. Marking these would help make better sense of them with the inclusion of more familiar terms.
Status
For now, I am putting this article on hold. I will review the article again in 7 days. I hope this review will help with your editing. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I changed the article to fit your recommendations but I'm wondering if the classification section is enough. There isn't much info on its implications outside the study that described it. Even then, it's mainly about shared characters.
Also, does the section seem a little less jarring now? RenaMoonn (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for getting back to you a little late, but yes, the classification section is much better. I think it is now definitely could pass 3a and 1a. I still need some time to make a decision, and I will probably edit a few things in the article myself. The Lobopodia page has some good info about panarthropod evolution - I will definitely incorporate some of that into this article. I will make my edits (they won't be major) and we can discuss them if you would like. If we reach a conclusion, we can pass the article.
Please feel free to comment/suggest/question anything that might help. You are the one that has done the most research. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright! I'll await your changes RenaMoonn (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright, here are some of my suggestions. I've implemented a couple of them, but the ones I wanna discuss with you are bolded:
Based on a time calibrated phylogeny, velvet worms colonized land somewhere in the Devonian around 374 mya rather than the Carboniferous (A living fossil tale of Pangaean biogeography)
Need to change the citation of Antennaconthopodia‘s similar characters thing (rn it’s citing a Helenodora study)
Might wanna change classification back to referencing Helenodora. It would boosts the page’s numbers and would be useful once the page is eventually expanded (Helenodora is decently important in velvet worm evolution)
Most lobopods don’t have a contested position, especially the ones that lead to arthropoda (total group arthropoda) Others like Loulishanidae are frequently recovered, especially by later studies (Onychophoran-like musculature in a phosphatized Cambrian lobopodian, 2016) (A Tube-Dwelling Early Cambrian Lobopodian, 2020) (The Collins’ monster, a spinous suspension-feeding lobopodian from the Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia, 2020)
Current classification section has a break in it's flow (in the phrase "It shows that many of the group’s traits..." what group is being talked about is sorta unclear)
Put the word “modified” back in the cladogram section, since it was modified from the one in the Ovatiovermis study
Cédric Aria should have their link restored, as they’ve done enough studies to be a relevant person (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PZ49XEoAAAAJ&hl=en)
Add a picture to the Radiodonta part of the cladogram (I chose Anomalocaris kuz its iconic)
RenaMoonn (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Understandable. A lot of these are things that I honestly just missed. As for your concerns:
1. I tried to include Helenodora in the article but I couldn't find a good place to mention it, so I ended up removing it. Also, this article is about a specific genus, and not Onycophora in general, so its inclusion, while nice, isn't missing critical information.
2. That is mostly true. There are a lot of taxa that are however. The stem-arthropod lineage is the only one that is generally well resolved. There are no widely accepted stem-tardigrades or stem-panathropods, for example.
3. This is a pretty easy fix; just replace "group" with "onycophora"
Some other things though:
I removed the link to Cédric Aria because they do not have a wiki page. Leaving it red, while annoying, is fine for now.
"modified" could be change to "simplified". For me, the word "modified" suggests that something has been tampered with.
Here is a hypothetical revision:
1. Antennacanthopodia is so far the only widely accepted Cambrian stem-group onycophoran. The affinity of many Cambrian lobopods is heavily contested and varies from study to study, and as such, Antennacanthopodia is critical in elucidating the origins of what is now a purely terrestrial phylum. It shows that many onycophoran traits (antenna with ocelli at their base, stubby legs with foot pads, modified second or third appendages) had already evolved in the Cambrian. However, as seen with Antennipatus, characteristics such as slime papillae did not evolve until later, likely after colonizing the land.
The cladogram below is simplified from Jean-Bernard Caron's and Cédric Aria's paper that described the lobopod Ovatiovermis.
Alternatively:
2. Antennacanthopodia is so far the only widely accepted Cambrian stem-group onycophoran. The affinity of Cambrian lobopods, especially those outside of the arthropod total-group, is heavily contested and varies from study to study, and as such, Antennacanthopodia is critical in elucidating the origins of what is now a purely terrestrial phylum. It shows that many onycophoran traits (antenna with ocelli at their base, stubby legs with foot pads, modified second or third appendages) had already evolved in the Cambrian. However, as seen with Antennipatus, characteristics such as slime papillae did not evolve until later, likely after colonizing the land.
The simplified cladogram below follows a study by Jean-Bernard Caron and Cédric Aria that described the lobopod Ovatiovermis.
I labelled the different possible edits and we can chose which is better, make new revisions, or leave the article as is. Personally, I would go with 1a and 2b. Also note that 1a and 1b are not mutually exclusive, so we could put both in.

Edit: I forgot about Helenodora in my revisions. Feel free to suggest something. I still think it flows better without its mention, but if you can find a good way to include it then go for it. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am passing this article. It is well written understandable, has no unsourced information, and covers just about everything there is to know about this topic so far. There is also a few pictures to top it off. The classification section was initially quite jarring, but now flows smoothly with the rest of the article.
Congrats to RenaMoonn for their second good article. I hope to see more from them in the future.
This is my first GA review of an article. While a short one, I have just that much more experience. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)