Talk:Rhinogradentia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why did he document them? Fun, fiction, hoax? -- Tarquin 18:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Fun I think. The link suggests that the author of the pamphlet was fictitious as well and the whole thing was made up by Gerolf Steiner from the University of Heidelberg. Secretlondon 18:50, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't we remove the taxonomy sidebar, to avoid confusion? --Delirium 20:23, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] et biologie des rhinogrades
The book seems to have been first published in France, in 1962. It was written by the respected biologist Pierre-Paul Grassé who was, through this hoax, fighting the (then dominant) theory that evolution was due to a series of random mutations.
Ref.: "Les rhinogrades, un canular qui sent la vraie question scientifique à plein nez", article published in Le Monde, 11/08/2000.
- Well, if he intended to bend the readers' opinion on some obscure scientific dispute, he obviously did not succeed. That point doesn't come through at all. The book reads just like a very good science joke, and educational too.
Jorge Stolfi 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, the book is too elaborate and well done to be just a pamphlet for an obscure cause. IMHO, it was written for the fun of it.
Jorge Stolfi 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rhinograde article
Should be merged of course. Made it after I couldn't find Snouter. The French book is a translation, afaik. Phlebas 21:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] French edition is the original edition
The article from Le Monde says there aren't any prior edition to the French one in 1962, although edited as a translation from (Grassé's pseudonym) Harald Stümpke's works. This was part of the hoax. Grassé did sign the preface under his real name.
- Just to confirm: Le Monde says that Gassé admits that he is the real author, and that "Harald Stümpke" is fictitious too? Os is that just Le Monde's theory? All the best, Jorge Stolfi 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taxobox not appropriate
A taxobox is not appropriate here. Rhinogradentia is not an order of mammals. Gdr 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is not a real order, sure, but it is a fictional one. The book has a lengthy discussion of how the ancestral mammal species (a shrew-like animal) evolved to fill all niches.
What is wrong with providing a taxobox for a fictional species? It's no different than providing a map for a fictional country, or a portrait for a Greek god. Should we delete those too?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)- What is the argument against using the taxobox? It says right at the top that it's fictitious, so it's not as if someone is going to be fooled into thinking that it's a real order. Stolfi's argument is a good one, because it's not as if the taxobox is something holy that is dishonored when used for a fake order. Citizen Premier 04:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Removing it again. Taxoboxes do not get used for fictional creatures. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can anyone say why not, or cite some kind of wikipedia policy for me? I'm going to revert again, because I believe just as stubbornly that it should be used... Citizen Premier 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Removing it again. Taxoboxes do not get used for fictional creatures. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- What is the argument against using the taxobox? It says right at the top that it's fictitious, so it's not as if someone is going to be fooled into thinking that it's a real order. Stolfi's argument is a good one, because it's not as if the taxobox is something holy that is dishonored when used for a fake order. Citizen Premier 04:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain this in more detail. First, a taxobox is more than just a visual aid, it's a piece of metadata describing the relationship of taxa to each other. We can and do run programs that analyze taxoboxes to generate, say, redirects from scientific names to common names, or lists of taxa that need articles, and so on. If taxoboxes get used for fictional taxa, then this "pollutes" the metadata, making it less reliable. We wouldn't want "Rhinogradentia" to appear in an automatically-generated list of orders of mammals, for example. Second, taxoboxes are visually distinctive and their appearance in an article conveys a certain amount of authority. Someone just looking at the taxobox might miss the explanation in the article text that the creature is fictional. Gdr 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rhinograde Picture
Could someone please put this picture in: http://nsm1.nsm.iup.edu/rgendron/plate04a.gif? I don't know how to. Thanks 204.49.209.120 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
