General classification

Usually, Neoptera are contrasted with Palaeoptera and, in turn, are divided into Polyneoptera (=Orthopteroidea sensu lato), Paraneoptera and Oligoneoptera.

The former bristle-tails (Thysanura) were divided into 2 orders: Machilida (=Archaeognatha) and Lepismatona (=Zygentoma).

By polyineoptera: Hemimerida are aberrant earwigs (Dermaptera), and termites are pedomorphic social cockroaches (Dictyoptera).

Since names with a rank higher than the family are not regulated by the code, there is a discrepancy, alas.

What kind of literature was used? Russian-speaking?

  
What kind of literature was used? Russian-speaking?

wiki + this site http://simatika.ru/page/Insecta

Site-combined hodgepodge, collected from various sources. I can't imagine how to use it.

Do you read English?

The scheme needs to be redone in accordance with what Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg said. I will add that the names Apterygota, Triplura, and Thysanura, due to the wide fluctuations in the volume of the taxa they name and the long-standing loss of the original volume, should be avoided altogether; instead, Insecta = Archaeognatha + Dicondyla(= Zygentoma)] + Pterygota). Also, entognaths are now recognized by most researchers as a polyphyletic formation due to the convergent development of jaw pockets in two-tails and two other orders, plus molecular data also do not indicate monophyly of the taxon. If we take this point of view, we get (Protura + Collembola + (Diplura + Insecta)). But this is up to you. According to the orders of Neoptera: 1. Notoptera = Grylloblattida, of these two names, the second is preferred as more common; 2. Hemiptera and Homoptera are now combined into one order Hemiptera; 3.Raphidioptera is duplicated.
By the way, in Firefox 19.0.2, the sign moves out (Protura with Diplura are in the first column), in other browsers everything is fine.

Thanks! A really relevant question is: is there a more or less up-to-date presentation of the classification/phylogeny of insects in Russian? Everything that "comes to mind" to me, alas, is in English.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen it in Russian. Yes, and in the English-language Internet, in general, a mess (including Wikipedia). People are trying to merge all points of view into one.
There is, however, the site of N. Y. Kluge (as informative as it is inconvenient) with detailed cladistic classification, but alternative points of view, of course, are not presented.

The wiki is a mess-not new. Kluge's books are in Flora and Fauna, but with all due respect to Nikita Yulievich, I would not recommend this "for general development".

The English-language versions include History of Insects and Evolution of the Insects. I like the second one much less, but still...

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 07.04.2013 22: 39

And both books have the same drawback-not a word about alternatives. Despite the completeness of the subject (compared to" competitors"), in History of Insects this is compounded by a very original and little - used classification-which does not mean, of course, that it is erroneous, but as a reference book on the taxonomy of insects it is difficult to recommend it.
Still, if we talk specifically about printed literature, I have not yet seen anything better than Kluge's 2000 book. Just in the book, he discusses alternative classifications - the problem is already at the age of the book, too much new data has appeared since then.

.. Most researchers now recognize the entognathes as a polyphyletic formation due to the convergent development of jaw pockets in two-tails and two other orders, plus molecular data also do not indicate monophyly of the taxon...

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand anything

The orders included in Entognatha are not [most likely] sister taxa, i.e. the relationship between two-tails and insects is closer than between two-tails and other entognaths, and the common ancestor of two-tails and insects lived later than the common ancestor of insects and all entognaths. It turns out that there should be two "entrances" to the taxon "Entognatha" in the scheme, because the ancestors of the two - tailed and other entognathas are different. Such a taxon is called "polyphyletic" (a normal one with a single ancestor for all members of the taxon is called "monophyletic"). The evidence for this is: on the one hand, the different structure and development of the main trait of the entognathae, according to which they were combined - the head pockets into which the jaws are retracted; on the other, phylogenetic trees built on molecular data (DNA sequences), in which the two-tails are grouped closer to insects, and not to other entognaths. As for the legtails (Collembola) and Protura, at one time they were supposed to be closely related, but the characters on which this hypothesis was based also showed only an external similarity. So now all entognates are listed in classifications either separately or together, but just as a tribute to tradition.

something like that?

Blattoptera is included in Dictyoptera; Dictyoptera together with Dermaptera, Embioptera, Grylloblattida, Mantophasmatodea, Orthoptera, Phasmatodea, Plecoptera, Zoraptera is included in Polyneoptera.
PAraneoptera includes Hemiptera, Psocoptera, Thysanoptera, and Phthiraptera. Everything else at the bottom goes to Oligoneoptera.
Thysanurata and Archaeognatha as superorder and extra order, just specify the subclass Archaeognatha.
Paleoptera -> Palaeoptera. Dicondyla -> Dicondylia.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen it in Russian. Yes, and in the English-language Internet, in general, a mess (including Wikipedia). People are trying to merge all points of view into one.
There is, however, the site of N. Y. Kluge (as informative as it is inconvenient) with detailed cladistic classification, but alternative points of view, of course, are not presented.

and the scheme that is presented in the pdf file, is it correct?

You will understand that there is no" correct " scheme. There are more common schemes (they are also more traditional and less well - founded) and less common ones (newer and more well-founded). Kluge's scheme is one of the latter, and it is based on his own research and ideas about the evolution of insects and arthropods in general. Without knowing its rationale, there is no point in using it. Moreover, it is not suitable if you need a more or less generally accepted system.

 
Thysanurata and Archaeognatha as superorder and order superfluous,

Why? I wanted all existing detachments to indicate

What are Polyneoptera, Paraneoptera, and Oligoneoptera?

This post was edited by the Collector-07.04.2013 23: 25

Pictures:

__________.jpg — (70.56к)

It simply turns out to be a "matryoshka pupa" when a single taxon of the lowest rank is nested in a single taxon of the next, higher rank, which, in turn, is nested, again, in a single taxon of the next rank, etc. In principle, nothing wrong, according to the classical rank taxonomy, it turns out that the "highest" taxon in this matryoshka, from which it begins, receives all lower ranks (i.e., in this case, subclass Archaeognatha-superorder Archaeognatha-order Archaeognatha), but it is superfluous to specify them, so usually " matryoshka"omitted, indicating only the highest or lowest rank. However, this is a matter of taste.

What are Polyneoptera, Paraneoptera, and Oligoneoptera?

In this scheme - cohorts (cohort). In general, ranks are a relative and rather conditional thing. No one has been able to develop formal criteria for assigning a particular rank to the highest taxon. Cladists generally omit them and use rankless systems (like N. Y. Kluge, for example).
According to the scheme-Plecoptera, Zoraptera in Polyneoptera; Psocoptera in Paraneoptera.

that is, I came out with a basically correct table, and N. Y. Kluge just has a newer and more scientifically confirmed one?

Again, there are no correct classifications, there are those that are in use, and those that are out of use. The latter are not necessarily incorrect - it all depends on what principle the classification is based on.
In general, I recommend, however, to put the information in order, download and read from beginning to end Kluge's book "Modern taxonomy of insects" in 2000 (the book can be downloaded from the Flora and Fauna library). The specific system there may not be quite up-to-date, but the book explains the principles of taxonomy and phylogenetics (and specifically on the example of insects) with a bang. It was one of the first serious entomology books I read, so I can assure you that it's the perfect place for beginners.