 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Venyukoviamorpha page were merged into Venyukovioidea#Venyukoviamorpha on 27 November 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Merger discussion
editThis seems to cover the same taxa as Venyukovioidea. The -oidea ending suggests that Venyukovioidea is a superfamily, but it is described in the taxobox and text as an infraorder. Venyukoviamorpha is described in text as a superfamily (and was until recently called a superfamily). Fossilworks only has a record for Venyukovioidea which is described there as a clade. Mikko's phylogeny archive treats -morpha and -oidea as synonyms. Venyukovioidea gets more reported results on Google scholar (and a general Google search).
If the two names don't have different circumscriptions, I think the title should be Venyukovioidea, but Venyukoviamorpha has more content. Calling -oidea a clade (or a superfamily) is OK; it shouldn't be called an infraorder without a source. Plantdrew (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support although I think they could both use some general restructuring.
- Asparagusus (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
