This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Base on thi source http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IKMP/PW/INS/GN2003_002.PDF. I'm havent found aby articles would someone know where into this family they actually fit, so I can link into and possibly expand. thanks Gnangarra 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search for the scientific name gives "Ommatoiulus moreletii (Lucas, 1860) (Diplopoda: Julidae)" (see wikispecies:Julidae). --Stemonitis 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wikispecies link, I didnt think of checking there. BTW article shortly Gnangarra 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do pillipedes figure in Myriapoda? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D momaya (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That sounds like a portmanteau word made from "pill" and "millipede" to me, in which case they are probably just millipedes that have the ability to curl up nto a ball or "pill" like some woodlice. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pill millipedes are millipedes in the superorder Oniscomorpha.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been poking around wikipedia regarding centipedes and particular house centipedes and im a bit confused. It seems like there must be an error somewhere, but I have no idea where the error is. The house centipede article lists the subphylum as Uniramia, stating it is a variety of centipede. In the Uniramia article it states the the subphylum contains hexapods and myriapods, including centipedes. However the centipede article lists the subphylum as myriapod with no mention of Uniramia as the subphylum at all. So im lest confused, what is the real subphylum of centipedes including the house centipede, myriapod or Uniramia, and is myriapod really a subcategory of Uniramia at all, or are they both subphylums. I'm completely confused, and thing this is a major mistake that might need fixing. Debeo Morium 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the same thing. I'm in my college class right now and I decided to look it up. My professor says that the subphylum is Uniramia.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the Uniramia is an old subphylum that has since been replaced by the Myriapoda. If the house centipede article lists their subphylum as Uniramia it should probably be changed.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a "major mistake"; it's just a difference in classification. The different subphyla reflect conflicting theories of how major groups of arthropods are related.

1. The Uniramia hypothesis originally held that arthropods arose from several different ancestors (are polyphyletic), and uniramians were held to comprise myriapods, hexapods (insects and their kin), and even velvet worms. Today it's generally agreed that arthropods had a single origin (they're a clade, but a similar group called Atelocerata comprises myriapods and hexapods and excludes velvet worms, which aren't arthropods in this sense. If you're going to assign Uniramia or Atelocerata the (arbitrary) rank of subphylum, then I suppose you could call Myriapoda an infraphylum or superclass within that subphylum.

But there are other hypotheses:

2. Myriapods are the sister taxon to a clade including hexapods and crustaceans (together called Tetraconata or Pancrustacea. Together, they all form a clade called Mandibulata.

3. Myriapods are the sister taxon to chelicerates, and together they form a clade called Paradoxopoda or Myriochelata.

Indeed, the major groups of arthropods have been classified together in almost every combination, and a solid resolution doesn't seem to be imminent. Because of this uncertainty, the Wikipedia page on arthropods takes what seems to me a reasonably cautious approach of treating chelicerates, myriapods, crustaceans, hexapods, and the extinct trilobites as five separate subphyla. This isn't perfect either, because the monophyly of each of these groups has been questioned, but it seems like a good approach until things settle out. - Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article lists both that there are 12 000 species and 13 000 species of myriapods. Obviously, these statements can not both be correct.--Gunnar Mikalsen Kvifte (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some have "fewer than ten legs" as the article suggests, is it not possible to be more specific? If it's eight legs then we should say so. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what this is? File:Unknown pede-like thing.jpg - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OF COURSE the organism IS a "millipede"... but maybe it would be worth editing the note on the origen of the name, to point out that a "millipede" really "ought" to be an organism with a thousandTH of a foot, and that the name should have been "kilopede". I think this could be done humourously without degrading the serious tone of Wikipedia, and I think (seriously) that the metric system is too important to leave this source of possible confusion not addressed.

Tkbwik (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the Latin prefix milli- can be used to mean either "thousand" or "thousandth". It is only the SI that insists on distinguishing the two, using the Greek-derived kilo- for the larger. That in no way prevents one form coining words using milli- to mean thousand. I have never seen anyone propose kilopede, even humourously (other than yourself), so it has no place in Wikipedia. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph states, "The group contains 13,000 species, all of which are terrestrial". It should be noted that early forms such as the Eoarthropleurids were aquatic. It would be simplest to note it parenthetically in that sentence, but I have no idea how to break up the closing hyperlink (which includes the period).NadaRama (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aquatic Eoarthropleurid claim may be true but needs verification. I've been reading a lot about fossil millipedes lately (although I am by no means an expert), and it seems to be an outdated assumption based on the presumed thin cuticles which were later decided to be shed exoskeletons. The wiki-information on fossil myriapods is still very tentative, and most sources are archived links to dead urls, not exactly current, trustworthy sources. See Arthropleuridea and Eoarthropleura for some recent updates. - Animalparty (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Myriapoda. 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/20110527071726/http://www.myriapoda.org/diplopoda/millipede_fossils.html to http://www.myriapoda.org/diplopoda/millipede_fossils.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021234219/http://www.pensoft.net/journals/ijm/ to http://www.pensoft.net/journals/ijm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023101805/http://nadiplochilo.com/index.html to http://www.nadiplochilo.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]