Talk:Arthropod head problem

message: The fossil evidence and different theories of Cambrian arthropod head segmentation sections could really use some diagrams.  --Savant13 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagrams

message: An edit (2, to be precise) by user MartinJ12033 at 07:05, 29 April 2008 and 07:07, 29 April 2008 inserted some language into the section on molecular development which is grammatically incorrect, refers to MADS-box genes - but talks about them in conjunction with sexual expression in plants - and is generally incomprehensible.
I'm not knowledgeable in this area; but since MartinJ12033 appears never to have made any other edits on Wikipedia, I doubt he will be available to ask him what he actually meant.  Would anyone object to me changing that section back to its state before that edit? It hasn't changed since MartinJ12033's edit.
The version I can understand:
"The arthropod head problem has been tackled in three main ways in this regard, first by using genetic segmental markers to probe the obscure region in front of the mouth, especially in insects; second by looking at Hox gene expression patterns to detect patterns of homology between different arthropods; and third, by studying gene expression in particular features (especially the labrum) to determine its appendiculate or other status."
The version I can't:
"The arthropod head problem has been tackled in three main ways in this regard, first by using genetic segmental markers to probe the obscure region in front of the mouth, especially in insects; second by Hox gene, showing evidence of being evovled in the Paleozoic era, have the ability to express patterns of homology between different arthrods. Just as Hox genes express patterns, Mads-box genes have the potential to initiate an important role in the integration of sexual expression time pathways in plants." Third, by studying gene expression in particular features (especially the labrum) to determine its appendiculate or other status."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace Makes Plenty (talk • contribs) 12:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to MADS-box genes in molecular development section 

message: Although I read it through I couldn't understand what is the "Arthropod head problem" acctually. It should be clear from the first section and it isn't. Idvash (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: +1. ten years later I still can't figure out what the problem is supposed to be :( 90.155.34.28 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is not clear 

message: The article is seriously out of date. Most of the references are dated before 2006 (ten years ago now); the main diagram introducing the problem is based on 2004 re-drawing of a 2000 original.
In particular, evidence is pretty conclusive now that there is no such clade as Tracheata – the phylogeny of extant arthropods groups insects with (actually inside) crustaceans, not with myriapods. This alters the nature of the "problem" and in particular any "solution". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: There have been some recent papers on trilobites in regards to the head problem which could add some valuable information to this page. Also as people have said before, much of the page does not reflect modern cladistic groupings. In the coming days I will begin to update this page with the resources I can find. Reklaw27 (talk) 12:31, 6 september 2017 (UTC)
:As you can see from my comment above, I agree that this page needs updating. It's been on my to-do list for some time, so I'll keep an eye on your work. Thanks for undertaking this! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reklaw27: it will be important to avoid relying on primary research sources for anything other than "X argued that xyz" type statements, as there are many conflicting points of view. Secondary (review) articles would be better, but with recent rapid change, old reviews may be of little use. It might be best to take a historical approach and to say '1900: A argued that abc', '1930: B argued that def', etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Outdated