Talk:Sepiida

@UtherSRG: I think there might actually be a good argument to restore this article's title to Sepiida, provided there's a suitable source to back it up. So bear with me a little...

WoRMS' records for both Sepiida and Sepiina are based on Biology and evolution of the Mollusca, which gives Sepiida as having two suborders Sepiina and Sepiolina. But, since WoRMS/MolluscaBase considers Sepiolina a full order Sepiolida, Sepiina is the only suborder left. Unless I'm mistaken, this should mean that Sepiina is now also redundant to Sepiida, suborder not being a major rank, but WoRMS/MolluscaBase for some reason I don't know still retains Sepiina.

To put it another way, I'm pretty sure Sepiina only makes sense to list as a suborder if there are actually other suborders in the order. You don't list a species with only one subspecies, you don't list a genus with only one subgenus (which would have the same name anyway), you don't list a family with only one subfamily and/or tribe, and it seems to me to make sense to say the same for higher ranks like order/suborder, class/subclass, etc.

The only trouble I have here is that I don't have an alternative source for the taxonomy offhand (I haven't checked). As for WoRMS/MolluscaBase, I'm inclined to believe that Sepiina being listed as a valid suborder of Sepiida is an error (unless I'm mistaken and an order can be given with a single suborder intentionally??), maybe whoever maintains the database should be contacted? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]