Talk:Biological classification

message: Please provide details of proper capitalistion, both specific to wikipedia style and the various conventions used around the globe, including how should we capitalise the actual terms, class (or Class), species, etc ... Common names, vs Latin names, and so on ... benefits and disadvantages of each system (or is there only one correct system?) Thx in advance ... next try to get all of wikipedia to adhere to the appropriate style ... -- Canglegrottlewirt (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Subregnum redirects to this page, but I don't see the term anywhere.  Could someone insert/define this term somewhere in the article?  Thanks, 128.174.87.104 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subregnum is Latin for subkingdom, so it's already listed. Ranks are given Latin names when writing taxoboxes, but there's no real need for them in the main text. It shouldn't redirect here, though. A redirect either to Kingdom (biology) or to Taxonomic rank would be more appropriate and informative. Gnostrat (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subregnum? 

message: Scientific classification → Biological classification —(Discuss)— Talk page consensus: there are other kinds of scientific classification and this article is specifically about the biological kind. The move has been suggested many times by different people and will probably not be controversial, but needs admin assistance because Biological classification is a redirect with several edits in the edit history. —Gnostrat (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RM April 10 

message: I oppose the merge.  The Linnaean Taxonomy deserves a separate entry because of its historical importance.  The entry should be on the use, development, and philosophy of biology about the system.  An entry on Linnaeus or his natural systems book would not be the best place to discuss the development of the system through the 18th & 19th century. And the Biological Classifications entry is the place for brief description in comparisons of systems, but not the place for a description of the system itself.  Iopis (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to Merge Comments

message: Please Give Briefly About What Is Classification & Uses Of Classification  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.141.212 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: Please Give Briefly About What Is Classification & Uses Of Classification  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.141.212 (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: merge was proposed 2 years ago, but discussion was not started here. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alpha taxonomy is the science of correctly establishing names for taxa, while classification is the science of what to do with these names later. These are two different issues, which should probably not be merged. We should perhaps discuss how to expand Alpha taxonomy so that it deals with all aspects and problems concerned with original descriptions of taxa, containing two main chapters, botany and zoology. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alpha taxonomy]] 

message: Some of us look and Clade and Cladistics and concluded that WP needs a package of articles, so that we know which covers the details of each topic and which summarises and refers to a related article for the details - see discussion at Talk:Clade#What_goes_in_which_article. We'll keep our drafts here, as this is the top-level of the package (at present?). We made  old drafts. --Philcha (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what is described in this article are details of Linnaean taxonomy and belongs under that header, e.g. the systematic hierarchy. Some of this have been copied over already. The details of Linnaeus own taxonomy has been moved to Systema Naturae. This article should be about biological classification in the general sense. It should cover the concept, the history and some of the approaches (Phenetics, Cladistics, Linnaean etc). A similar round of rewriting will be necessary in the articles on cladistics, some of which are rather badly written, not entirely neutral in tone and containing a number of errors.Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure for package of articles on [[Biological classification]], [[Cladistics]], [[Linnaean taxonomy]] etc.

message: Sources for use in the same package. I suggest that: they're grouped by topic, so sources are relevant to more than topic will appear in each topic; each source would have a note about by it's useful, preferable just 1 line. --Philcha (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for package of articles on [[Biological classification]], [[Cladistics]], [[Linnaean taxonomy]] etc.

message: LSID is sooo 2007. The standard has fallen out of favor with the taxonomic community and is practically dead at this point. More recent recommendations advise using regular HTTP URIs or PURLs as GUIDs. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any good sources on that? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globally Unique Identifiers for Names section outdated 

message: A merger between the articles Phenetics with Linnean taxonomy has been proposed here. The proposal arose while examining Phenetics with a view of making it more explicit in this article and to clearly differentiate cladistics from it. Since the subject is of relevance to this article, may I request comments from the watchers and maintainers of this article on this issue. AshLin (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger proposal dropped. AshLin (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments on a proposal 

message: Recent edits has stated that cladistic classification has met resistance from creationists. I have reverted this because:
* 1) Creationists are against all classification based on evolution, which means pretty much every scheme forwarded since the late 19th century, not only cladistics.
* 2) What creationists might think of the minutae of different classification systems all based on evolution is frankly not relevant.
What is true is that there has been heated debates between the adherents of cladistic nomenclature and more traditional Linnaeanists and evolutionary taxonomists, but this has nothing to do with creationism. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cladistic classification and creationism

message: This article is really very poorly referenced, for such an important and sometimes controversial topic. Most of the references are actually generated from the  template. I don't want to just put a warning on the article, but I do hope to encourage editors to do some referencing! I'll try to do some myself. Peter coxhead (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Can someone explain to me why all the material after "The philosophical classification is in brief as follows:" is in this article? It belongs in a philosophy article, not here. Why should it not be removed? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it could be considerably shortened.Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy

message: The exhaustive site "Taxonomicon" included this list of ranks under the section "Biota":
Domain
Kingdom
Subkingdom
Branch
Infrakingdom
Physlum
Subphylum
Infraphylum
Superclass
Series
Class
Subclass
Infraclass
Superlegion
Legion
Sublegion
Infralegion
Cupercohort
Cohort
Magnorder
Superorder
Grandorder
Order
Suborder
Infraorder
Parvorder
Superfamily
Family
Subfamily
Tribe
Subtribe
Genus
Species
Subspecies
I was just wondering if this complete list should be included on the site.  Thanks, Seraph  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphnb (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full List of Taxonomic Ranks 

message: Linnaean taxonomy and Biological classification have the same interwiki. --109.185.44.38 (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to? Are you saying that the two articles link to a single article in another language? Which language? And it may well be that such links are appropriate, depending on what an article in another language covers. -- Donald Albury 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a difficult problem. I was able to fix a few at Linnean taxonomy by copying from the French page, but most of them require reading the various languages. Some languages have a page named for the Linnean sexual system for classifying plants, but perhaps that is't general enough. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Biological classification's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CavalierSmith2004":
From Kingdom (biology): 
From Domain (biology): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Biological classification]] 

message: Hi I'm not the expert of classification here, my only qualification for this edit is that I'm confused.
I'm also not familiar with how wikipedia works, so apologies if this edit is out of place, please tell me how I should have done it.
garrytre@bigpond.com
In 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypericum_perforatum and lots of other plant entries 
on the right hand side I find
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
(unranked):  Angiosperms
(unranked):   Eudicots
(unranked):   Rosids
Order:  Malpighiales
Family:   Hypericaceae
Genus:  Hypericum
Species:  H. perforatum
But when I click "Scientific classification"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
I get a different sequence
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
So Phylum & Class  get swapped to  (unranked) (unranked) (unranked).
So I spose I have questions about why there are 3 levels of unranked instead of the two indicated, and, although labelled as unranked, they obviously comply with come sort of heirarchical scheme, what is is?
This query / suggestion doesn't involve eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-footed_rock-wallaby
where "Subclass" is reasonably self explanatory.    Similarly in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank  subdivisions like "Superorder  Order   Suborder  Infraorder  Superfamily  Epifamily  Family  Subfamily   Infrafamily" are self explanatory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.188.75 (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 101.103.188.75. These "unranked" groups are called "clades" (see Phylogenetic nomenclature and Evolutionary taxonomy). They represent a group of organisms that all arose from a single ancestor (monophyly). They don't necessarily fit into the traditional concept of ranks (at least not yet), but they are accurate when it comes to tracing the evolutionary history of taxonomic groups. Plants, especially, are currently undergoing major revisions to classification and it's not settled yet (see Angiosperm Phylogeny Group).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To add a bit more to Obsidian Soul's clear response: the Biological classification article represents what is becoming a slightly out-of-date view. It's correct in that it describes what ranks are available for use. However, increasingly biologists are not using all of the formal ranks. For example, I have several editions of what used to be Barnes Invertebrate Zoology and is now Ruppert, Fox & Barnes Invertebrate Zoology. Earlier editions very much used the Phylum – Class – Order – Family hierarchy. The 7th edition has a section on p. 4 called "Downplaying the Linnean Categories" explaining that the book "largely dispenses with the Linnean categories" (i.e. formal ranks). They write things like "ArthropodaP" meaning that if you want you can treat the clade Arthropoda as a Phylum. The APG III system we use for plants does use formal ranks up to Orders, but not higher than that. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched heirarchies on wiki pages 

message: Am I alone in finding the article unnecessarily confusing and repetitive?  The introduction states: 
Biological classification..is..used to group and categorize organisms hierarchically. and continues The groups in the classification are known as taxa (singular: taxon).
This is then repeated under Defintion:
"The arrangement of entities in a hierarchical series of nested classes, in which similar or related classes at one hierarchical level are combined comprehensively into more inclusive classes at the next higher level." (the second phrase appear to be tautological with the first)
A simple introduction would be: Biological classification is a hierarchy of biological groupings (taxa), the levels of which are called ranks.  The internationaly agreed version contains seven main levels .  The article states that Ranks between the seven..can be produced by adding prefixes such as "super-", "sub-" or "infra-". Thus a subclass has a rank between class and order, a superfamily between order and family.  Yet in the diagram, which appears twice on the page, the main ranks include "Legion" and "Tribe", ranks not mentioned anywhere else in the article.  No explanation of the diagram is offered and, while its logic can be deduced, because its structure is ordered from left to right and not from top to bottom as the rest of the diagrams are and because many of the terms are introduced and appear only in the diagram, this is a non-trivial task. The system described seems incimplete as it stands or other aarticles eg Bacteria are.  Bacteria has no other scientific classification than its domain. LookingGlass (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetitive, no. The lead (introduction) should be a summary of the rest of the article, so should contain nothing not repeated elsewhere. Confusing, yes. One problem is that there is no "internationally agreed version" of the ranks. Different nomenclature codes govern different groups of organisms; widely used ranks, such as "domain", don't feature in the codes and so aren't, strictly speaking, formal "ranks". There is absolutely no consensus on higher level classification, e.g. what the kingdoms are. The article badly needs improving, but is still going to be complex. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing?