Talk:Scientific classification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

know

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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 I'm guessing that Linnaean is an older system superceded by the neutrally-termed scientific classification.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


[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)


[edit] Goals of a zoologist - Sept 2004

[edit] Two plus six equals seven

"Simply knowing the two-part scientific name makes it possible to determine the other six layers." What six layers?

I don't see this on the page. Lousyd 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand... 2 plus six equals eight! But I'm only 11.. What I don't understand is COUNTLESS!! -Helen

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] sect.

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

[edit] Merge

Because of someone who thinks this page needs to be merged here, Classifying Organisms is suggested to be merged here. I want to vote to oppose it!Tcatron565

In it's present incarnation, I think a redirect is more appropriate, since most of the content (other than the textbook-esk intro) is duplicated. --Hansnesse 03:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I got to this page from the #135 on the "list of most linked pages" (16213 links). If any merge is done, it had better be done right! Walkerma 05:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Classifying Organisms should be a redirect to here (and so should Classifying organisms). If there is any content not there, it should be considered for inclusion in this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a red tailed hawk

The above topic was posted by User:216.134.18.93

  • Howdy and welcome the Wikipedia! The best bet for questions is usually the Wikipedia:Where to ask a question page (this page being mostly about what should go into the article, rather than specific questions about things), but with regard to your specific question, you may want to check out the Red-tailed Hawk article here on Wikipedia. I will post the same information on your talk page. --Hansnesse 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hominidae

I removed the following from the section on Terminations of names, since I think it is somewhat misleading... Perhaps a better example could be found. My understanding is that Hominidae once referred to the genus Homo, but now can include great apes (thus Hominin is prefered for group which only includes humans (which Wikipedia lists as a tribe, not a genus).

* Forming a name based on a generic name may be not straightforward. For example, the Latin "homo" has the genitive "hominis", thus the genus "Homo" (human) is in the Hominidae, not "Homidae".

Thoughts or clarifications? --TeaDrinker 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. The number of genera in a family does not make it any less valid. The point was how names are formed using latinate formation, not about what is in the grouping. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, re-reading it, I see your point. It appears I had misread it. --TeaDrinker 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mnemonic

The mnemonic right there at the top seems a bit out of place. If you need to remember the order, you can make something up, find it somewhere else, or see the link provided later on in the page to the English Mnemonics wikipedia page. Can I remove the mnemonic section? Pretty please? - Lousyd

Yes, go ahead. They're silly, and they also have a strange way of breeding, all too prolifically (just deleted two more . . .) - MPF 08:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes of rank

Under "Examples", the article says "Higher taxa and especially intermediate taxa are prone to revision as new information about relationships is discovered." It then gives an example contrasting the mammalian subclasses and infraclasses used by McKenna & Bell with the traditional ones. While it's true that "new information about relationships" caused this change by adding more nodes, the statement could be misleading by implying that the newer use of Theriiformes and Holotheria imply a different understanding of mammals' phylogeny. But the traditional use of Theria and Eutheria have not gone away. McKenna & Bell still use these taxa, they've just moved them down to lower ranks to accomodate more nodes between Mammalia and Theria. Is there a better way we can phrase this?

Cephal-odd 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whither the superfamily?

While the discussion of the problems of creating a taxonomic structure that maps to biological and evolutionary reality are interesting, I would also like to see some more discussion of the history of classification. For example, I grew up with the KPCOFGS acronym, but now I routinely see the Superfamly cited. When did it come into wide use, and in response to what classification problem? Thanks!

ablock 07:05, 08 December 2006 (UTC)

Good comment. I was just reading something about this, and will see what I can find. This comes, in botany at least, from some specific reclassification scheme done in the past 20 years. KP Botany 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a number of intermediary ranks: their names are formed from the main rank name and a prefix -- super-, sub-, and infra- (the latter is never applied to the taxa of the family level or lower). Superfamilies are widely used in insect taxonomy. In any case it is just a convention. All ranks are arbitrary, only the groups themselves and the nested pattern of their relationships are somewhat real. Alexei Kouprianov 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScientific_classification_0bbd.html"