etymology anthro man pod foot so anthropod means man's foot it is arthro and not anthro arthro means joint preceding unsigned comment added by talk contribs can't pod also mean leg preceding unsigned comment added by talk contribs ill get started on an anthropod article i searched and there actually isn't one then we can compare the two i really have no expertise on this subject whatsoever but doesn't 'anthropod' refer to a totally different species correct me if i'm wrong but it seems to me that there is a common confusion of arthropod and anthropod 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 professor's gospel to his class i've 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 b's particular scheme differs from itis in a defined way it is generation removed from itis a similar situation applies if c's scheme differs in defined way from itis however if c defines his scheme with reference to b's 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 cladist's 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 doesn't mean that there can be no exceptions to this rule cf wikipedia ignore 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 i'm no expert i've 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 vicki rosenzweig 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 maveric