Talk:Genus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Genus is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. |
Contents |
[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 neanderthalers 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?
- It depends on which genus and which subspecies. Most members of genus Canis (canines: dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos) can interbreed with fertile offspring (I know of no exceptions personally).
[edit] What does "genus" really mean?
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)
- 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 terms "generic" and "specific" are derived from the same cognates as "genus" and "species". This gives us a vital etymological clue as to the original distinction. The sciences of genetics and skeletal measurement have blurred any rigid categorization. --205.201.141.146 16:30, 15 June 2007 (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 nothing.Name sugg by Pranav
[edit] A Re-write
I made a first attempt this morning to substantially rework and re-order this article, especially the first few paragraphs. I thought that the first sections in particular were poorly put-together, opaque, and hard to follow. Invertzoo 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
