Talk:Biological classification/Archive 1

A new classification table - Jul 2002

A new classification table is at Hominid. --maveric149

I took out that insect orders end in -odea, because with only five or so exceptions, they don't.

I was talking about those orders that are named for genera. The divisions of fungi aren't named for genera, AFAICT, but it's specified in the ICBN that if they do, they end in -mycota (as the existing ones do). The endings of orders aren't specified by the ICZN, but those of fishes and birds are formed by adding -formes to the stem of a genus name. The orders of insects that are named for genera end in -odea; others end in -ptera or other endings. -phma

The classification of Homo sapiens - Sep 2002

In the classification of Homo sapiens, minor morphological differences below the significance of Species are known as Subspecies, Races, and Subraces. Examples are the Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa, containing the Sanid (Bushmen) race; and the Lappish subrace of arctic Europe.

Two things wrong with this. One, subspecies don't apply specifically to people, but to all sorts of different things, as with subclasses, subfamilies, and the like. Two, I don't believe there has been any concensus on how or even whether to divide Homo sapiens in such a manner, so examples are not going to be especially worthwhile.

-- Josh Grosse

Please sign your entries, so I can associate a person with the statements. -- done.

As to your first point, if the 'subspecies' classification applies to "all sorts of different things", then it should be added to the "seven layers" to make eight layers. In any case, I'd like to see a professional's definition of this term, not just the ramblings of me, a layperson.

The difference is that subspecies isn't a primary layer, in the sense that every organism is assigned to one category for each of the seven ranks, but not everything is divided into subspecies. There are a lot of ranks like that - off the top of my head

• Domain
• Kingdom
• Subkingdom
• Superphylum
• Phylum / Division
• Subphylum / Subdivision
• Superclass

• Class
• Subclass
• Infraclass
• Superorder
• Order
• Suborder
• Infraorder
• Superfamily
• Family
• Subfamily
• Tribe
• Subtribe
• Genus
• Subgenus
• Species
• Subspecies
• Race
• Subrace

have all definitely been used to rank taxa - probably there are a few more, and nobody would be confused by the introduction of something like infratribes if they were truly needed. I think you can agree it would be needless obfuscation to try and expand the main seven to include all these extras.

As to the second point, I agree that a formal, accepted classification of the morphological subtypes of Man has yet to be done. However, the term 'race', and to a lesser extent, 'subrace', is, I believe, widely used in the literature of physical anthropology, among other sciences, and therefore also belongs in the article.

You may disagree with my example, but you should not remove 'race' from the article, because without morphological classification, overall classification is imprecise. Cladistics, for example, become confused in the absence of consideration of subspecies, race, and subrace. David 21:01 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

That's fair. I'll mention them in the article, and should a better example come up somebody can add it.

Thanks. I've made some unrelated additions that you might want to review for accuracy. David 18:53 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

The classification of Homo sapiens - Nov 26 2002

I've added some details to the example of the classification of Homo sapiens. I have put them in the correct order, but I do not know the 'sub' names of the classification labels. Please, someone, add these. David 16:12 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

I've added ranks for the lower two groups. The other taxa you've added don't have definite ranks, so I've taken them out.

Josh Grosse, thank you. David 19:49 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

Creating a nomeclature in a scientific discipline - 15 Sep 2004

Why not consider that scientific classification is creating a nomeclature in a scientific dicipline, and there are as many of them as disciplines, nearly.

Just a fex examples (URLs) to check togehter with the relevant literature

http://www.anthro.palomar.edu/animal/default.htm classification of living things bevezetés a taxonómia elvei, az emberi osztályozási kategóriáira való koncentrálással: linkek, glossary of terms http://www.cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/iau-spec.html Specifications concerning designations for astronomical radiation sources outside the solar system http://www.ciser.cornell.edu/ASPs/search_athena.asp dot fájlok http://www.classweb.loc.gov/Auto/ kongresszusi könyvtári osztályozási rendszer, el?fizetéses használat www.completedb.ttc.lv/""+url+"' complete ttc database, lett egyetem www.dbhs.wwusd.k12.ca.us/Nomenclature/Nomenclature.htm Kémiai nommenklatúra kollégium feladatainak tartalomjegyzéke www.dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Systematics_and_Taxonomy/ /Zoological_Nomenclature/ http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binominal_nomenclature Wikipedia, többnyelv? enciklopédia, Bionimal nomenclature biol˘gi ban a fajok megnevez‚s‚nek szabv nya & ep.llnl.gov/msds/orgchem/nomenclature.html Nomenclature linkgyjtem‚ny & fp.bio.utk.edu/mycology/Nomenclature/nom-intro.htm Botanikai n˘menklatŁra egyetemi bevezet‹ tananyag & fttp.dcs.shef.ac.uk/share/ilash/Moby/ a Moby projekt nyilv noss gra hozott eredm‚nyei moby hyphenator moby language moby part-of-speech moby pronounciator moby thesaurus moby words rpoject gutenbeng gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/ & google directory subject-specific schemes & home.earthlink.net/~misaak/taxonomy.html A bol˘giai n˘meklatŁra kl”nlegess‚gei & jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/lab/TaxonomyLab.html the nuts and bolts of taxonomy and classification tannyag & les.aston.ac.uk/extdic.html external dictionaries and term bank links t”bbnyelvre & lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/allen/spectral_classification.html the classification of stellar spectra & library.thinkquest.org/17940/atomic_nomenclature/atomic_nomeclature.thml atomic nomenclature k”nyvt ri t j‚koztat˘ anyag & palimpsest.stanford.edu/lex/ lexical and classification resources linkgyűjtem‚ny sz˘t rakr˘l ‚s oszt lyoz si rendszerekr‹l & people.ouc.bc.ca/woodcock/nomenclature/index-2.htm Basic Organic Nomenclature alapvet‹ szervesanyag n˘menklatŁra & planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/ a bolyg˘k n˘menklatŁr ja & planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/asteroids/gaspTOC.html USGS GASPRA Nomenclature bolygk f”ldrajzi nevei? & publish.aps.org/PACS/pacsgen.html cikk az APS Journals-ban Physics and Atsronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) let”lthet‹ & s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/my-zshop/ intelligent entertainment oxford english dictionary & science.widener.edu/svb/pset/nome_b.html Vegyi n˘menklatŁra chemical nomenclature & sln.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/classify/classify.html oszt lyoz si tananyag, multim‚di s, gyerekeknek & tsk.fi/en/index.html the finnish centre for technical terminology & us.expasy.org/enzyme/ Enzyme nomenclature database & uscode.house.gov/uscct.htm amerikai t”rv‚ynek united states code classification tables & uwasa.fi/comm/termino/collect/ terminology collection online dictionaries & vizier.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/Dic Az ‚gitestek n˘menklatŁra sz˘t ra & www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/ IUPAC szerves k‚mia n˘menklatŁra &

www.acm.org/class/1998/ The ACM computing classification sstem (1998-as v ltozat) ‚rv‚nyes 2003-ban & www.acog.org/from_home/departments/dept_web.cfm?recno=6 ACOG Coding and Nomenclature american college of obstetricians and gynecologists & www.ams.org/mathweb/mi-mathbyclass.html matrials organized by mathematical subject classification & www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/~charles/statlog/ machine learning neural and statistical clasfication k”nyv let”lthet‹, eu projekt & www.amw.org/msc/ 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification & www.andrews.com/kysc/terms.html Nautical Nomenclature vitorl z si szakkifejez‚sek sz˘szedete a glossary of sailing terminology & www.arev.org t”bbnyelvű port l az eu sjogszab lyokhoz

     az eur˘pai bortermel‹

r‚gi˘k gyűl‚se (arev) & www.astrolog.org/labyrinth/glossary.htm labiirintus sz˘tr labirintus algoritmuosk is vannak & www.bacterio.cict.fr/ bakt‚tium nevek jegyz‚ke a n˘menklatŁr ban elfoglalt helykkel egytt & www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm Botanikai n˘meklatŁra nemzetk”zi k˘dja (a T˘ki˘ k˘d) aktu lis v ltozat neve St. Louis Code & www.biodiversity.soton.ac.uk/sp2000/DynamicChecklistSearch.html organizmusok tudom nyos nev‚t lehet f‹bb cosportokban megk‚rdezni &

www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/codes/codes.htm Codes of Nomenclature ide a woedb‹l az aktu lisakat & www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/zoolinfo/syst_tax.htm Biosis sytematics, taxonomy and Nomenclature & www.bls.gov/soc US department of labour standard occupational classification (soc) system feor & www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm National center for Health statistics classifications of diseases and functioning and diability & www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02htm az ipari k˘dsz mok ‚s megnevez‚sek & www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html NAICS North American Industry Classification system & www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/ Sz‚nhidr tok n˘menklatŁr ja & www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/ NC-IUBMB enzim n˘menklatŁr ja & www.chem.umr.edu/~poly/nomenclature.html POLY - Nomenclature Committee & www.chem.vt.edu/RVGS/ACT/notes/Nmenclature.html egyetemi jegyzet a vegy‚szeti n˘menklatŁr r˘l (nyelvr‹l) & www.chemqmw.ac.uk/iupac/ IUOPAC elm‚leti ‚s alkalmazott k‚mia nemzetk”zi Łni˘ja javaslatai a szerves, biok‚miai n˘menklaŁr ra, jelekre ‚s terminol˘gi ra, stb. & www.classification-society.org/ international federation of classification societies honlapja & www.clres.com/ Cpmputational lexicons research naygon fontops anyagok & www.clres.com/singlex.html acl special interest group association for computational linguistics nagyon j˘ linkek, resources & www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/ wordnet a lexical database for the english language online lexical refernce system ftp-velűftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/ & www.dagostini.it/patclass/patclass olasz szabadalmi sz m keres‹ hatnyelven & www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm DSMZ legŁjabb baktr‚ium n˘menklatŁra & www.dsmz.de/dsmzhome.htm German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures & www.econlit.org/subject_descriptors.html econlit subject descriptor gazdas gi t‚mak”r”k taxonomi ja & www.english.bham.ac.uk/drc/ birmingham i egyetem dictionary research centre & www.ens-lyon.fr/LBMC/laudet/nomenc.html Nuclear Receptor Nomenclature Homepage & www.fgdc.gov/standards/status/sub5_8html biologiai n˘meklatŁra ‚s taxon˘miai adat szabv nyok & www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/ HUGO Gene NomenclatŁra bizotts g minden emberi g‚nnek ‚rtelmes nevet ad˘ szervezet & www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/guidelines.html Guidelines fo Human gene Nomenclatue (2002) & www.gutenberg.net/ free online literature & www.gutenberg.net/ free online literature & www.hgvs.org/mutnomen/ Nomenclature for the description of sequence variations http://lists.mokk.bme.hu/mailman/listinfo/hunglish-corpus levelez? lista

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/NNV/UN-NNV_ABC.html Nomenclature of Naval Vessels – hajózási értelmez? szakszótár www.ibiblio.org/patents/ Index to manual classification of patents www.iczn.org Zoológiai nomenklatúra, nemzetközi bizotság nómenklatúrája a www.iczn.org/code.htm helyen www.ifla.org/VII/s29/sci.htm classification and indexing section of international federation of library associations and instituions www.imm.ki.se/CYPalleles/ Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele nómenklatúra bizottság www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/revfam.html Vascular Plant Family Nomenclature www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/pb250/nomc.html PBIO 250 jegyzet Nomenclature nemzetközi botanikai növénytan ICBN www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/ Mouse Nomenclature Home Page MGI MOuse Genome Informatics www.ishs.org/sci/icralist/icralist.htm Directory of ICRAs International Cultivar Authorities ISHS Commission Registration ISHS International Society for Horticultural Science and Nomenclature www.iupac.org/divsions/IV/IV.1/ IUPAC sucommittee on macromolecular terminology www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html Library of congress classification outline www.lub.lu.se/metadat/subject-help.html controlled vocabularies, thesauri and classification systems available in the www. dc subject dublin core www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~chris/MR/MR.html 1991 mathematics subject classification www.nauticom.net.users/jihall/bill/ions.htm ion n˘menklatŁra www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/intro_to_universal/virus_nomenclature.html Virus Nomenclature www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html national library of medicine nlm classification online www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html nemzeti park egységeinek rendszerbe foglalt kategóriái, értelmez? szótár az egységekr?l www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc7_1.htm ápolási módokról cikk és osztályozási kategóriák www.oclc.org/dewey/ Dewey Services, Dewey decimal Classification www.opm.gov/fedclass/ office of personnel management of the US gov. federal classification systems - munkakörök, foglalkozások besorolása & www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system Search occupational safety and health administration US department of labor - iparágak foglalkozási ágak, tevékenységek www.peterme.com/archives/00000063.html cikk - inovation in classification peter memes www.pitt.edu/~csna/csna.html Classification Society of North America www.redsun.com/type/classification/ bet?típusok osztályozása www.rtpcompany.com/info/data/number.htm RTP Company m?anyaggyártó - compounded thermoplastic products RTP product numbering company nomenclature syntax www.shodor.org/unchem/basic/nomen/ Nomenclature, egyetemi tananyag, kémiai www.sid.camac.uk/bca/bcahome.htm bliss clasification association honlapja www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb4/Labs/Classification_Lab/classification_lab.h lab.html oszt lyoz stani tananyag & www.snomed.org SNOMED International a College of ASmerican Pathologists (CAP) r‚szlege szabv nyos nyelv a betegs‚gek leˇr s ra & www.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/csbn/ IAU Division III Committee on Small Body Nomenclature & www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stclatre.thml classification trees tananyag & www.udcc.org az eto honlapja & www.ukoln.ac.uk./metadata/desire/classification/ desire re 1004 te role of classification schemes in internet resource description and discovery & www.uspto.gov/go/classification/ usa szabadalmi hivatalnak oszt lyoz si rndszere egytt van a v‚djegyekkel & www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/roman_names.html R˘mai (n‚v) n˘menklatŁra & www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/nom.html biobib nomenclature of biofuel names & www.wave.net/upg/immigration/sic_index.html standard inustrial classification (sic) ndex & www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc ipc 7 english version IPC Nice Vienna Locarn nemzetk”z szabadalmi oszt lyoz s IPC & www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/Sites/TreeDBS/Botanic/botanic.html Botanikai m˘nemklatŁra a f kr˘l, tudomnyo ‚s k”znevek & www.worldprintmakers.com/english/nomencla.htm Glossary of printmaking nomenclature and abbreviations & www.zoonome.net/ Zoonomen Zool˘giai n˘meklatŁra gyűjtem‚ny & www23.hhrdc-drhc.gc.ca/ national occupational classification & www23.hrdc_drhc.gc.ca/2001/e/generic/welcome.shtml national occupational classification of canada & xml.coverpages.org/classification.html resource description and classification xml fors

--- Now the best use of these nomenclatures is that they are automatically suitable for the assemmbly of multi-lingual dictionaries, since they have a structure of numeric identifiers, and are therefore a professional product in comparison with wiktionary, a crazy crap, if you ask me.

Apogr 17:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A merger with Linnaean taxonomy? - Jan 2003 - May 2004

Is there any reason this article shouldn't be merged with Linnaean taxonomy? --Ryguasu 01:24 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

If anything the opposite should happen; Scientific classification is an updated version of Linnaean taxonomy. --mav

Either way I've looked at both and they should at least cross refer with an explanation or the degree of repetition will get worse --(talk to)BozMo 12:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Separation of Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? - Jun - Jul 2003

Moved from the Reference desk

Is there any reason why we have to separate articles on Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? I'm guessing that Linnaean is an older system superceded by the neutrally-termed scientific classification. But then I'm no biologist. —seav 00:47 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Some common names are more inclusive or exclusive than their scientific "counterparts". Maybe somebody can fill you in with an example. --Menchi 00:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how Menchi's answer answers the question. There's a branch of biology called cladistics that's starting to steal Linnaeus's show, and I have seen it proposed as an outright replacement. (I really don't see how the hierarchial Linnaean system can be discarded altogether, but it's really late at night, and I shouldn't be saying that a noted paleontologist is full of hot air.) Of little practical interest, but of good encyclopedic interest, are systems of classification that preceded Linnaeus.

The other problem that jumps out at me is that this article is titled Scientific classification, not Taxonomic. Scientists classify lots of things - off the top of my head, stellar classification - but taxonomy is just the most elaborate and best-known such system.

That said, the text of the two articles must certainly be merged, but turning one of the two pages into a redirect is not appropriate. -Smack 07:28 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't answer the Q at all! I misread seav's question as to why we need to have articles on scientific names when there exist already articles on common names. >_< --Menchi 01:42 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So, ignoring cladistics for the meantime, there is nothing different between the Linnaean system and the "scientific classification"? So I guess that these two should be merged? (mav says otherwise) —seav 06:14 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

>>From Mav's talk page

The wrong title!

There should be more on "Linnaeus himself" at the other place (see its talk page too). As a non-specialist (or a lay visitor to Wiki) I would expect the title Linnaean taxonomy to cover the biological taxonomy that Linnaeus set out. I would expect there links to a page with title Biological taxonomy presenting the very latest in popst-Linnaean taxonomy, including everything in this article (i.e. currently called Scientific classification) and what is presently at Linnaean taxonomy, specifically the sum total of all the ranks and "subranks" (I mean including this huge table of all the weird ones you have there, in between the main ranks in the famous diagram. I have put this comment there too. The title Scientific classification should be on the disambiguation page only; it is too vague for anybody to reasonably expect it to refer uniquely to one particular area (what this article does at the moment). Iph 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)iph

Both Scientific classification and linnaean taxonomy - Aug 2003 - Feb 2004

Scientific classification: Could you expand a bit more on the talk page of that article why do we need both it and linnaean taxonomy? Ad verecundiam I'd tend to belive you, given your bs in bs, but I'd like more info (as do some more people there still discussing the matter). --One that is supposed to be gone, but is too much of a wikipediholic to do it

I didn't say that - I said that if there is to be a merger then everything from linnaean taxonomy should be put into Scientific classification. But if linnaean taxonomy is to still be an article then it should concentrate on Linnaeus' actual proposal and not all the modern stuff. --mav

I'd say that having Linnaean taxonomy talk just about Linnaeus is a pretty good idea. Then this article should be made a disambiguation page linking to something like taxonomy or taxonomic classification, as well as stellar classification, classification of minerals, and whatever other classification systems there are. Smack, who is also supposed to be gone

I agree. You have two articles discussing exactly the same thing (biological, linnaean classification), and one Linnaean taxonomy reads better in several parts. Most of the biological stuff should be taken out of this place except for links. Linnaean taxonomy can then lead into modern taxoniomy treatments and cladistics, which already exists as such in a very good article elsewhere in Wikipedia. If I am encouraged, I'd be happy to do the work, but there are too many good people involved in creating this page for me to just jump in and do the editing. Marshman 20:31, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree. This page should not be a disambiguation page. Linnaean taxonomy is a dated concept that has been replaced by scientific classification. See my suggestion above. --mav 01:55, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry. I was not suggesting a disambiguation page. I think the two subjects have so much in common, that with respect to biological classification (taxonomy), there only needs to be one page on the subject, or if two, then one covering just Linnaean and the other more modern treatments (although I'm uncertain just how different these are that "Scientific Classification" is some kind of radical departure in methodology) up to cladistic approaches, which have their own article already. I think I'm agreeing with your previous comment above, where you want to preserve the article title as Scientific Classification and either merge in Linnaean taxonomy or greatly simplify that article. -- Marshman 02:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Marshman and Maveric149. We don't need a separate article on Linnaean taxonomy. We only need to preserve the article on Linnaeus himself. RK 03:45, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And to clarify my position (and after going back and re-reading the articles) we should merge as Mav suggests, the Linnaean material into Scientific Clasification. However, material in Linnaean taxonomy should be moved with care and not just trashed — It is well written. - Marshman 05:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you just maliciously ignoring my reminders that taxonomy is not the only form of scientific classification, or do you have a good reason? Also, do you plan to discard the information regarding Linnaeus's original classification? -Smack 20:52, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If there is to be stuff written about scientific classification in the abstract or about classification systems not oriented toward biological species, then I think that should be on a different page and we should do some disambiguation. "Scientific classification" isn't an abstract term that biologists attach out of lazy habit to a system of classifying species. It's a technical term with which they refer to precisely that.168... 05:23, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not I. I thought your point was a very good one. Can you put on the Scientific Classification page at least a starter paragraph on that to be sure it does not get lost if pieces start getting shifted about. It sounds like a good way to actually start the page: a general presentation of the definition/concept re all sciences, not just biological taxonomy - Marshman 21:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For example, see List of particles for another specialty's need for a "Scientific classification". Maybe Wikipedia articles named Scientific classification (biology), Scientific classification (particle physics), etc. ? Bevo 19:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could add a description of the difficulty in classifying microbes: their features are derived from direct visual observation, but include such procedural characteristics as Gram stain type, motility, ability to form spores, etc. However, given an unknown bacterium with a given set of characteristics, it is in general not possible to predict its phylogeny, toxicity, etc. Other methods, using genes, their DNA, and several types of RNA, are under development.

The species name both the Genus and species - 28 Aug 2003

I added a statement that one of the reasons why the species name is actually both the Genus and species name of the organism, is that sometimes the exact same species name (but never both Genus and species names) is used in different species (fishes are notorious for this :). There's probably a better way to note this however. Rgamble

I believe you are incorrect in your basic understanding (although what you say is correct). An organism is not a "species" in the same sense as the species level of taxonomic organisation. A species is named by the binomial Genus species — Genus being the name and species being a descriptor (an adjective). As a descriptor, there is no reason not to be reused for lots of different organisms, just like "red" could apply to shoes or cars or walls without confusion - Marshman 20:17, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been looking for the best place to make a comment. I strongly dislike the list of taxonomy ending with 'species = G. species" because the 'G' is the genus, not species. This is the format used in all the wikipedia pages. Although it's a huge number of pages to change, I believe they should be changed as they are edited. When we have a list from kingdom down to species, the Genus initial is INCORRECT. The binomial is right below it, and that is correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs)

This is not the correct place for this comment. Try WP:TOL and template talk:taxobox. You'll find the vast majority of us disagree with you. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this is not the place for the comments. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Associate pages, like Family (biology)

The content on pages like Class (biology) and Family (biology) are almost entirely duplicates of the content here, and of each other, to the point where someone has listed one of the KPCOFGS acronyms on the latter. Instead of this duplication of effort, I'd like to suggest that they redirect here. They did at one point, but Node ue restored them over the objections of Stan and myself. We need a larger concensus on the matter, one direction or another. Josh

I wholeheartedly agree. The ones that were redirects previously should (unless any significant real work is present) be returned to redirects. Might want to mention it on WP:TOL as well, though. - UtherSRG 19:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with redirects. - MPF 22:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or to Linnaean taxonomy? 68.81.231.127 23:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This would only be correct for a small number of the links. It would be better to redirect to here and then those who are interested in the historical usage can go to the Linnaean article. - UtherSRG 01:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a lot of difference, but I'm not sure why it's incorrect. 68.81.231.127 02:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. I think the three of you, plus Stan, are enough support to justify keeping them as redirects for the time being. Much of their content isn't appropriate anyways, since it repeats info for the entire set of ranks (like the acronyms), as well as included controversial ones like domain at the top. The pages can always be reverted if some substantial info on the rank in question shows up - though I don't think it's possible for most ranks; what a family is depends on the order. They can also be changed back if some unexpected support appears here. Historically, Tannin and node had restored them from redirects, but it's clear they're a minority by themselves. Josh

• Darn it I wanted to link to Class (biology) but there's no point now. Kappa 05:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Scientific" Classification"?

Shouldn't this topic just simply be titled "Biological Classification". The entire article is based on the classifiation of organisms. I feel that "Scientific" classification is too vague, general or both, and doesn't apply to the article described here. I feel the term is really ill defined and a can of worms in that classification is not really scientific or not scientific. It's rather a procedure used to group things, and the purpose of so doing may or may not be scientific. Jeeb 2 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

'Scientific Classification' is the term used in the fields of biology and taxonomy. - UtherSRG July 3, 2005 23:27 (UTC)

I also proposed this. I even changed this articles name into Biological classification but they changed it back. See also: Talk:Biological classification. The argument then and this argument now is hardly satisfying.... Mdd 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

More than a year later, I agree that this article should be titled "Biological taxonomy". The title "Scientific" Classification" is far too general. This is exacerbated if one follows the link to "folk taxonomy" which, we are told there, "can be contrasted with scientific taxonomy". Where does the phrase "scientific taxonomy" take us? To the article "Taxonomy". Clearly the word "taxonomy" is appropriate (and in my opinion mandatory) as the title for the subject of this article. Not all scientific classification is according to the Linnaean model; that which is, described here, is limited to the biological; and that would leave the "Scientific" Classification (disambiguation)" page not requiring the word "(disambiguation)" in its title. Iph 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)iph

Modern developments

Gdr added the following text, which I have moved here for the moment:

The general approach Linnaeus took to classifying species and many of his taxonomic groups have remained standard in biology for at least two centuries. It is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent, so that taxa include a single section of the evolutionary tree. Such groups are called monophyletic groups (see also paraphyletic and polyphyletic).

However, although the Linnean system continues to work well for living organisms, it copes less well when fossil species are attempted to be included. This is because biologists generally prefer taxa to be monophyletic — that is, to consist of all of the descendants of some ancestor. If all taxa are monophyletic then they form a nested hierarchy corresponding to the evolutionary tree, with each taxon corresponding to a branch of that tree. In the Linnean system the branches leading to a particular organisms need to be assigned different ranks, and for well-studied groups with good fossil records that are now many more named branches than there are ranks to put them in.

One approach to solving this is to multiply the number of ranks, for example by introducing new major ranks (branch, series, legion, cohort, tribe) and multiplying the prefixes that can be used to modify them (magna-, super-, grand-, sub-, infra-, nano-, parv-, mir-). This is the approach adopted by Systema Naturae 2000.

However, there is a problem with expanding the number of ranks. The Linnean system requires each taxon to be placed in taxa of every higher rank. But that makes little sense for many fossil species. For example, Ichthyornis is thought to be a close relative of the ancestors of the modern birds, Neornithes. Now Neornithes is a subclass, so in the Linnean system Ichthyornis must have its own subclass (Ichthyornithia?), order (Ichthyornithiformes), and family (Ichthyornithidae) as well. But placing them in separate subclasses exaggerates the difference between the Ichthyornis and other early birds such as Limenavis which if they were alive today might be placed in the same family.

An approach to solving this problem is to abandon the notion of ranks altogether, on the grounds that the branching tree of life is real but the notion of ranks is wholly artificial. In this approach, known as cladistic taxonomy, only monophyletic taxa or clades are used, and ranks are abandoned. This approach is widely used by paleontologists, and is used by the Tree of Life web project.

A formal code of nomenclature for cladistic taxonomy, the PhyloCode, has been proposed, but many of its rules are in conflict with established codes of nomenclature such as the international codes of zoological and botanical nomenclature, and it is unclear how the different codes will coexist.

Most of this should be returned to the article, but it badly needs to be reworked, and I don't have the time at the moment. The main problem is it operates on the assumption that taxa need to be monophyletic. It ignores the main problem in reconciling this with Linnaean taxonomy, which is that the nested hierarchy can't place ancestral forms in any of the subgroups. And it ignores the possibility that paraphyletic groups are ok, which many evolutionary biologists allow in theory or practice. For instance, I have not heard the argument that Homo sapiens needs to be classified as part of H. erectus, even if it developed from it. All in all, I think it needs balancing before we can include it. Josh

I agree. Gdr 17:22:35, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Looks like a "tipped-over bookcase" to me. What is here is mostly from a zoological perspective. From a botanical point of view it is terribly wrong. I don't think this can be salvaged without splitting it.

PvR Sep 2005

Please explain what you mean. Also, please sign your "talk" edits with ~~~~. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction to Aristotle Reference, Sept. 19, 2005

I suggest deleting the reference to Averroes and Aristotle. Aristotle's work De Anima is his treatise On the Soul, not on animals, and contains no discussion of animal classification. Averroes is well known for his commentary on the Aristotelian theory of mind.

However, elsewhere Aristotle did make significant contributions to the study of taxonomy, and his work The History of Animals deals extensively with the classification of living things.

A helpful list of articles on Aristotle's taxonomy can be found in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes (Cambridge University Press, 1995). See the bibliography, page 336. (ISBN 0-521-42294-9; ISBN 0-521-41133-5)

Comment by Glen Koehn, email: gkoehn(AT SYMBOL)gkoehn.com

sect.

Section (biology) redirected here, but this page doesn't cover sections. Snottygobble | Talk 22:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)