Talk:Genus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.
This article needs more context around or a better explanation of technical details to make it more accessible to general readers and technical readers outside the specialty, without removing technical details. See below for more information.


this explains why the platypus is called Ornithorhynchus.

As somebody reasonably well-educated on the subject of biology and taxonomy, this statement is false. I have no idea what the preceding paragraph has to do with the platypus. Can anybody either use a different example or explain why--I can't see a logical connection at all. User:Tokerboy

This annoyed me for a couple days because it seemed nonsensical. Then I got the bright idea to check the platypus article, and sure enough it was explained there. I added the info to this page. Tokerboy 19:43 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Can species in a Genus Mate?

I remember from my Biology class in grade 12 that certain species could mate in a genus. For example, this is why it was theorized that human and neandrathales may have mated in Europe--a theory which has since been disproven. But I do know that in Toronto...a Lioness an a Leopard naturally mated together [[1]]. So can a two species of the same genus actually breed together? Or does it depend upon what particular genus and species we are talking about?

This article does not really explain what makes a genus a genus; it just circulates around a definition. What differences make a genus distinct from another? MrBenzpyrene 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can make any group a genus. It is just a convention established by experts in a particular field of taxonomy. The mechanisms involved in establishing a particular convention are too tricky to be explained in a nutshell but some rational framework for the discussions was provided by cladistics in the 1970s. Of course, the principles of cladistics are more, actually, guidelines :) Seriously, there is no imaginable justification for ascribing any rank in taxonomic hierarchy (except for species, which is a bit less arbitrary). It has a lot to do with nomenclature (the rules of naming) and nothing to do with some real natural entities of a generic quality. Alexei Kouprianov 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The article could at least include that information. If a genus cannot be easily defined in a short space, at least some indication of what it is and isn't would be helpful, or something to narrow the definition more than no definition at all. Rintrah 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The only solution is to extend a historical section, which is virtually absent now. I'll see what I can do about that. Alexei Kouprianov 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure/Technical

I think this article is widely different from the other taxonomy articles, and may be a bit too technical. I don't feel qualified to rewrite it myself, but I felt it was worth noting. Mister.Manticore 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGenus_9723.html"