Talk:Nautiloid

message: I originally wrote this article in 1998 and published it on the Web.... It need links to other articles. Dlloyd 20:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled (1)

message: Portions of this text are : "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this. Dlloyd 00:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled (2)

message: Should this be merged with Nautilus or vice versa? Seem like they overlap considerably, but I'm no cephalopod expert. --Lexor|Talk 13:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I see, nautiloid's refer to all the extinct forms of cephalopod's as well.  OK, nix that.  --Lexor|Talk
It actually might have been better to have merged the singular Nautiloid and Nautilus and to put the content of this article under the Nautiloidea,the subclass, or at least under Nautiloids. Even so there is a distinction between a nautiloid, any individual within the Nautiloidea, and the specific genus Nautilus J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: "The ammonoids...evolved from the nautiloids" - does this mean ammonoids are not nautiloids? Perhaps it should say they are realted to the ammonoids. --DanielCD 16:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think taxonomists have this well in hand yet. There are references that say Ammonoidea and Belemnoidea (and other Coleoidea) evolved from older Nautiloidea, but that would mean, cladistically, that they are all nautiloids (see the classification tree on Cephalopoda. ToLWeb shows a somewhat different tree than the one we're using (which comes from this PDF which is also what CephBase uses. Neither show well any understanding of where the exticnt groupings fit in or how the extant and extinct groupings are related to each other. - UtherSRG 18:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ammonoids 

message: This paragraph was recently deleted:
: "Traditionally, the most common classification of the cephalopods has been a three-fold division (by Bather, 1888), into the nautiloids, ammonoids, and coleoids. This article is about nautiloids in that broad sense, sometimes called Nautiloidea sensu lato."
but I think we should restore it because it mentions the origin of the classification that appears in the taxobox, and explains the broad use of Nautiloidea that used in this article.  It contrasts with the narrower usage of the Treatise, or the still narrower sense used by Wade, or Teichert 1988.  Perhaps because the relations among several nautiloid orders remains unresolved, this broad sense of "nautiloid" has been used a great deal over the years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cephal-odd (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bather classification 

message: The title of this article, Nautiloid, is misleading. There is a grammatical disconnect. The word nautiloid is singular and applies to an individual animal or fossil, or at best a single species. It calls only for a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic discussion.  The article on the other hand is about a plural group, the entire suite of nautiloids which go to make up the subclass Nautiloidea -- which is what the article really is about. I tried renaming the title to Nautiloids, the next best thing to renaming it according to the taxon, but was immediately thwarted. 
Nautiloidea appears in taxoboxes. It's the subclass Nautiloidea, not subclass Nautiloid or even subclass Nautiloids. Nautiloid and nautiloids are useful vernacular terms that make conversation or reading less stilted, but they are not proper taxonomic terms. Shouldn't Nautiloidea link to a page with the same title. Isn't this where conformity should lie. 
J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to your first point, please see WP:PLURAL, and with regards to your second point, please see Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Name. I'm not trying to thwart article improvement; I want to see these articles improved as much as anyone. I'm simply trying to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines, which are the result of community consensus. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Cladistics is a useful tool in determining and sorting out phylogenetic relationships. See Ammonoids above. But lets not get hung up on it.  There is the real problem of diminishing returns. A clade is defined from an arbitrary beginning which may be useful only for a particular study. If the concern is nautiloids it is pointless to begin the clade with the ancestral mollusk. Beginning it with Plectronoceras goes back far enough. On the other hand if we're discussing ammonoids there is no need to go further back than the bactritids and include the entire suite of true nautiloids. A major problem with cladistics is the prohibition against paraphyeltic groups which results in evolved and distinctively different groups being regained within their ancestral group. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cladistics

message: In the section on Taxonomic relationships it states that nautiloids "are defined by the exclusion of both those descendent groups" (i.e. ammonoids and coleoids).  In any case, it strikes me that this is a poor way of defining something, namely by exclusion. What if there were no ammonoids or coleoids and only nautiloids, then how would they be defined. Best to define them on their observable characters such as concave septa and retrochoanitic septal necks and leave off reference to exclusion.  J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition Nautiloid 

message: No mention of shell chemistry in the section describing the shell, nor either at Ammonoidea - is anyone competent out there willing to add a paragraph? The fact that aragonite and calcite have different solubility is often so important in taphonomy of cephalopods that I think it should be detailed here. 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  shell chemistry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nautiloid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411043421/http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~palaeont/fossilnautiloidea/fossnautpalneocephalopoda.htm to http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~palaeont/fossilnautiloidea/fossnautpalneocephalopoda.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050328205726/http://www.palaeos.com/invertebrates/Molluscs/Cephalopoda/Nautiloidea.htm to http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Molluscs/Cephalopoda/Nautiloidea.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: In the classification section Orthoceratoidea is listed as "the Orthoceratoidea of Kröger 1007". There are two Kröger citations used in this article (Kröger, B.; Landing, E. (2008) and Kröger, B.; Yun-bai, Y. B. (2009)) and it is not clear (at least to me) which of these is being referenced there (or if it is some other paper/article by Kröger). It is not clear what the "1007" is referring to. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kröger 1007?