Talk:Systematics

message: Wasn't taxonomy about classification and name-giving taxa, and systematics the study of organisms' evolutionary relationships? The latter is a research program and the former a practice. 
Quoting :
 Systematics: the science of organizing the history of organismal evolution
      the science of ordering
   Identification: recognizing the place of an organisms in an existing classification
      Use of dichotomous keys to identify organisms
   Taxonomy (Nomenclature): assigning scientific names according to legal rules
      Recall discussion of ICZN Green Book (see also Phylocode homepage)
   Classification: determining the evolutionary relationships of organisms
         A "Natural Classification" will accurately reflect phylogeny
            Classification should be a hypothesis of evolutionary relationships
Shouldn't we divide taxonomy from systematics more clearly? Even in the taxoboxes? I noticed that the French wikipedia put a 'classical classification' (with Linnean categories) in their taxoboxes as well as a 'phylogenetic classification' (without Linnean categories). This seems like a good  practice. Maybe we can do the same at other wikipedia's but call these Taxonomy and Systematics respectively.  Fedor 09:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy not the same as Systematics! 

message: There is an article I am reading called, "Does Systematics Drive Old Testiment Exegesis? Or Can God Still Change His Mind? Questions of Method" by J. Daniel Hays. Not sure if this will help someone expand the article or put it somewhere else. I am still unsure what it means...66.68.215.101 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Meanings 

message: Systematics was added to this template.  It is located under Life sciences. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science template 

message: Here's an article that could be used to cover some of the history:
* 
Sorry, don't have time to add anything myself. – Maky « talk » 17:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Hello, I need a help from people with knowledge in systematics and taxonomy to discuss the :Template:SysTax. This template was removed from the pages where it appears for discussion and improvment. Thanks Zorahia (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Dear All, just a short thought. In March 2014, I rpinted a copy of the English language Wikipedia entry "Systematics" and the last word at the end of the text for "Definition and relation with taxonomy" is "cladoendesis".
However, I have been unable to find a definition for "cladoendesis", therefore this might be a mistake for "cladogenesis" which does have a definition.
Therefore, please can this word be checked? I ask because on July 30th 2014 I looked at the current Wikipedia entry for "Systematics" and there has been no change. Plimsoleprinzip (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: cladoendesis? should this be cladogenesis? 

message: Who invented & introduce taxonomy didn't coined the term "taxonomy"  it was given by de candolle😅😅😅😝😝 Krishnanshu yog (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun fact 

message: There seems to be some sort of conflation between "branches" of phylogenetic trees and branches of the discipline which is confusing.  The first two sentences say effectively nothing.
The three described "branches" of systematics - numerical, biochemical and experimental - are arguably not the way that people who write textbooks about systematics, such as E. O. Wiley, David Williams, Ward Wheeler, Pablo Goloboff, or I, would carve up the field.  I am not sure what the cited "Systematics: Meaning, Branches and Its Application". Biology Discussion. 2016-05-27. Retrieved 2017-04-12 is (the linked web site says it is " an online platform to help students to share notes in Biology"), but it hardly seems an authoritative source.  
Unlike some, I don't summarily delete other people's work from Wikipedia, but I suggest that this section could be deleted and the entry would not suffer. Abrower (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that as it stands this section is very poor; it's hardly sourced and much seems wrong as far as I know. I would support deleting it. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Branches and applications"