Talk:Amphipoda

message: Hello, I've been looking into the foraging behavior of Ampithoe longimana and amphipods in general and was wondering if I could get some feedback on some sources that I've found. Thanks!
Cruz-Rivera, E., & Hay, M. (2000). Can Quantity Replace Quality? Food Choice, Compensatory Feeding, And Fitness Of Marine Mesograzers. Ecology, 81(1), 201-219. Retrieved September 21, 2015, from http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9658%282000%29081%5B0201%3ACQRQFC%5D2.0.CO%3B2]2.0.CO;2
Cruz-Rivera, E., & Hay, M. (2001). Macroalgal traits and the feeding and fitness of an herbivorous amphipod: The roles of selectivity, mixing, and compensation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 218, 249-266. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://hdl.handle.net/1853/34241
Duffy, J. E., & Hay, M. E. (2000). Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organization of a benthic community. Ecological Monographs, 70(2), 237–263. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/36754]2.0.CO;2
Orav-Kotta, H., Kotta, J., Herkul, K., Kotta, I., & Paalme, T. (2009). Seasonal variability in the grazing potential of the invasive amphipod Gammarus tigrinus and the native amphipod Gammarus salinus (Amphipoda: Crustacea) in the northern Baltic Sea. Biological Invasions, 11(3), 597-608. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-008-9274-6/fulltext.html
Anon2831 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foraging Behavior 

message: Why is there no breakdown of the name like most other pages.  If I can figure it out, I'll fix it. --FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 03:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added an etymological breakdown of amphipod. My sources were the Webster's New World College Dictionary and the New Oxford American Dictionary. I dug around numerous places trying to find the best explanation for amphi- which seems to be where the discrepancy in meaning lies. The previous editor said the reason for amphi- "of both sides" was because there are legs on both sides of the body, which doesn't seem to make any sense as more species would fall into this category as a result. The current meaning (feet) "of both kinds" seems more fitting as amphipod's feet have more than one purpose. Please discuss or edit if anything more clarifying is found. Thanks. Nikolai Ruzimatov (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The account in The Century Dictionary ("having feet in both directions") reflects the proper meaning of "amphi" (which does not give the meaning "different-footed"). The Century Dictionary is very respected for its scientific etymologies. The OED gave up  treating scientific vocabulary fully because the CD was doing it so much better. It would be nice to contrast Amphipod with Isopod (equal feet), unfortunately having equal feet is perfectly compatible with having feet in both directions. The names are contrasted/related only to the extent that each picks out a different characteristic of the creatures' feet. Tsinfandel (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The two features are perfectly contrasted. Amphipods have legs pointing in different directions, while isopods have them broadly parallel. This hold true even if the etymologies aren't perfect for those meaning. This distinction is very important, and mustn't be removed. "Amphi-" is a very short prefix, and may be glossed as "on both sides", referring in this instance to the fact that the legs point in different directions. That's the same thing you're trying to convey, even if you think "different-footed" is a poor gloss. "Having feet in both directions" is an explanation, not an etymology, and so is "different-footed". They are all explaining the same thing, but you insist on deleting useful information, which is not acceptable. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the legs are contrasted in the animals themselves - so that helpful fact is put in the article. The Greek prefixes aren't - so they are left out. Tsinfandel (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to "different forms of appendages" in the introduction is quite misleading now for the general reader, particularly as you do not allow linking to subsection of the article explaining the diversity of crustacean appendages among and within body sections. The reader is led (and entitled) to think about the more evident difference between antennae, pereopods, pleopods, uropods etc. Likewise in this context, "the two kind of legs that amphipods possess" in the text remains ambiguous (even if maybe based on reference) if the nature of the difference (thoracic legs pointing in different directions) cannot be directly stated, as it seems to be the case. It might be better to omit the ambiguous sentence from the introduction, and explain the thing more properly later down?  --  Mo5b (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the name&etymology section up to the top of the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.218.210 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  no breakdown of the meaning of '''Amphipods''' 

message: First gnathopod really has another morphology (no astacid-like chela, but subchela, the same as on the second gnathopod). Can someone edit this imaage? --Glagolev (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: Why has Caprellidea been reintroduced while it has been replaced 7 years ago by Corophiidea? References here. Lycaon (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably because the source used is from 9 years ago. If there's a suitable source that covers the classification of the entire Order (and ideally more), then I'd be happy to follow that. Evidently, I didn't find one when I was re-writing the article. Note also that there's no rule of priority for higher taxa in zoological nomenclature. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I'll see if I can find a copy for you. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added a sentence about the Myers & Lowry system. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of consensus among amphipod scientists about which system to use, so I've tried to reflect that: the taxobox can be read according to either system. It would be nice if the article at Corophiidea or Caprellidea explained the different systems; I don't think I've got enough insight to write it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corophiidea  

message: Thorax has 8(!) segments, of which the first is fused with the head (cephalon). Fot that reason, the figure is not labeled correctly...should be thorax segment II - VIII!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.30.71.170 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  body segmentation  

message: Apparently scientists have just found 'Supergiant' amphipods 28 cm in size off New Zealand. I don't have the knowledge of the subject I feel is required to update the page, so I thought I should leave a note and a link to the article here. 'Supergiant' amphipods found in NZ waters (AAP, SBS, 3 Feb 2012) --TenguTech(Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the begining of the article that "Amphipods range in size from 1 to 340 millimetres". But further down in the article the largest recorded size is 28 cm. Is there any source for the 34 cm claim? 212.85.89.60 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Supergiant' amphipods  

message: "Amphipods are difficult to identify, due to their typically small size, and the fact that they must be dissected. As a result, ecological studies and environmental surveys often lump all amphipods together."
In my work I identify marine benthic macroinvertebrates, including amphipods. The blanket statement about needing to dissect them is not true. I may need to dissect them now and again, but in terms of pulling off a structure to mount it on a slide to examine under a compound scope, not to look internally. The second sentence I would say is fairly true, only because a) the person IDing them is not trained, or b) identification down to species isn't necessary for the study. I'm going to change it to "they sometimes require dissection," and expand on the reason for difficulty of identification. Esoxidt•contribs 21:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification statements 

message: Overall great job on addition to this article, I was interested by the topic of compensatory feeding, clearly a great evolutionary adaptation. I think you have a great summary of the trait in general and why it is important for evolution, but you could go into more detail about how it evolved, if that information is provided in other articles. I was also wondering what kind of foods are more nutritious that the amphipods with the compensatory feeding trait might not choose over low quality food. The majority of my edits were very minor like word choice and grammar, as well as a couple incidents of changing the structure and order of sentences to make the statement more clear. Overall, I could not find many sentences that needed improving at all! The second paragraph in foraging behavior might need a little more attention. I think the behavior is interesting as the amphipods that can detect these compounds in seaweed, but what are the evolutionary implications? Does this save them from eating something harmful, the seaweed, or is it just an interesting foraging behavior? Does it help or hinder the amphipods? Otherwise, I think you did a good job explaining why compensatory feeding is important to evolution.
Anonymous4715 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Compensatory feeding feedback

message: unresolved seems to be the family Micruropidae Kamaltynov, 1999. Is it valid?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Micruropidae?