Talk:Biological classification/Archive 1

message: Why not consider that scientific classification is creating a nomeclature in a scientific dicipline, and there are as many of them as disciplines, nearly.
Just a fex examples (URLs) to check togehter with the relevant literature
http://www.anthro.palomar.edu/animal/default.htm classification of living things
bevezetés a taxonómia elvei, az emberi osztályozási kategóriáira való
koncentrálással: linkek, glossary of terms
http://www.cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/iau-spec.html Specifications concerning designations for astronomical radiation sources outside the solar system
http://www.ciser.cornell.edu/ASPs/search_athena.asp dot fájlok
http://www.classweb.loc.gov/Auto/ kongresszusi könyvtári osztályozási rendszer, el?fizetéses használat
www.completedb.ttc.lv/""+url+"' complete ttc database, lett egyetem
www.dbhs.wwusd.k12.ca.us/Nomenclature/Nomenclature.htm Kémiai nommenklatúra kollégium feladatainak tartalomjegyzéke
www.dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Systematics_and_Taxonomy/ /Zoological_Nomenclature/
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binominal_nomenclature Wikipedia, többnyelv? enciklopédia, Bionimal nomenclature
biol˘gi ban a fajok megnevez‚s‚nek szabv nya
&
ep.llnl.gov/msds/orgchem/nomenclature.html
Nomenclature
linkgyjtem‚ny
&
fp.bio.utk.edu/mycology/Nomenclature/nom-intro.htm
Botanikai n˘menklatŁra
egyetemi bevezet‹ tananyag
&
fttp.dcs.shef.ac.uk/share/ilash/Moby/
a Moby projekt nyilv noss gra hozott
eredm‚nyei
moby hyphenator
moby language
moby part-of-speech
moby pronounciator
moby thesaurus
moby words
rpoject gutenbeng
gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/
&
google directory
subject-specific schemes
&
home.earthlink.net/~misaak/taxonomy.html
A bol˘giai n˘meklatŁra kl”nlegess‚gei
&
jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/lab/TaxonomyLab.html
the nuts and bolts of taxonomy and
classification
tannyag
&
les.aston.ac.uk/extdic.html
external dictionaries and term bank links
t”bbnyelvre
&
lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/allen/spectral_classification.html
the classification of stellar spectra
&
library.thinkquest.org/17940/atomic_nomenclature/atomic_nomeclature.thml
atomic nomenclature
k”nyvt ri t j‚koztat˘ anyag
&
palimpsest.stanford.edu/lex/
lexical and classification resources
linkgyűjtem‚ny sz˘t rakr˘l ‚s oszt lyoz si
rendszerekr‹l
&
people.ouc.bc.ca/woodcock/nomenclature/index-2.htm
Basic Organic Nomenclature
alapvet‹ szervesanyag n˘menklatŁra
&
planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/
a bolyg˘k n˘menklatŁr ja
&
planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/asteroids/gaspTOC.html
USGS
GASPRA Nomenclature
bolygk f”ldrajzi nevei?
&
publish.aps.org/PACS/pacsgen.html
cikk az APS Journals-ban
Physics and Atsronomy Classification Scheme
(PACS)
let”lthet‹
&
s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/my-zshop/
intelligent entertainment
oxford english dictionary
&
science.widener.edu/svb/pset/nome_b.html
Vegyi n˘menklatŁra
chemical nomenclature
&
sln.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/classify/classify.html
oszt lyoz si tananyag, multim‚di s,
gyerekeknek
&
tsk.fi/en/index.html
the finnish centre for technical terminology
&
us.expasy.org/enzyme/
Enzyme nomenclature database
&
uscode.house.gov/uscct.htm
amerikai t”rv‚ynek
united states code
classification tables
&
uwasa.fi/comm/termino/collect/
terminology collection
online dictionaries
&
vizier.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/Dic
Az ‚gitestek n˘menklatŁra sz˘t ra
&
www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/
IUPAC szerves k‚mia n˘menklatŁra
&
www.acm.org/class/1998/
The ACM computing classification sstem
(1998-as v ltozat)
‚rv‚nyes 2003-ban
&
www.acog.org/from_home/departments/dept_web.cfm?recno=6
ACOG
Coding and Nomenclature
american college of obstetricians and
gynecologists
&
www.ams.org/mathweb/mi-mathbyclass.html
matrials organized by mathematical subject
classification
&
www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/~charles/statlog/
machine learning neural and statistical
clasfication
k”nyv let”lthet‹, eu projekt
&
www.amw.org/msc/
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification
&
www.andrews.com/kysc/terms.html
Nautical Nomenclature
vitorl z si szakkifejez‚sek sz˘szedete
a glossary of sailing terminology
&
www.arev.org
t”bbnyelvű port l az eu sjogszab lyokhoz
      az eur˘pai bortermel‹
r‚gi˘k gyűl‚se  (arev)
&
www.astrolog.org/labyrinth/glossary.htm
labiirintus sz˘tr 
labirintus algoritmuosk is vannak
&
www.bacterio.cict.fr/
bakt‚tium nevek jegyz‚ke a n˘menklatŁr ban
elfoglalt helykkel egytt
&
www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm
Botanikai n˘meklatŁra nemzetk”zi
k˘dja (a T˘ki˘ k˘d) aktu lis v ltozat neve
St. Louis Code
&
www.biodiversity.soton.ac.uk/sp2000/DynamicChecklistSearch.html
organizmusok tudom nyos nev‚t lehet
f‹bb cosportokban megk‚rdezni
&
www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/codes/codes.htm
Codes of Nomenclature
ide a woedb‹l az aktu lisakat
&
www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/zoolinfo/syst_tax.htm
Biosis
sytematics, taxonomy and Nomenclature
&
www.bls.gov/soc
US department of labour
standard occupational classification (soc)
system
feor
&
www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm
National center for Health statistics
classifications of diseases and functioning
and diability
&
www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02htm
az ipari k˘dsz mok ‚s megnevez‚sek
&
www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html
NAICS
North American Industry Classification system
&
www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/
Sz‚nhidr tok n˘menklatŁr ja
&
www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/
NC-IUBMB
enzim n˘menklatŁr ja
&
www.chem.umr.edu/~poly/nomenclature.html
POLY - Nomenclature Committee
&
www.chem.vt.edu/RVGS/ACT/notes/Nmenclature.html
egyetemi jegyzet a vegy‚szeti
n˘menklatŁr r˘l (nyelvr‹l)
&
www.chemqmw.ac.uk/iupac/
IUOPAC
elm‚leti ‚s alkalmazott k‚mia
nemzetk”zi Łni˘ja
javaslatai
a szerves, biok‚miai n˘menklaŁr ra, jelekre
‚s terminol˘gi ra, stb.
&
www.classification-society.org/
international federation of classification
societies honlapja
&
www.clres.com/
Cpmputational lexicons research
naygon fontops anyagok
&
www.clres.com/singlex.html
acl special interest group
association for computational linguistics
nagyon j˘ linkek, resources
&
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/
wordnet
a lexical database for the english language
online lexical refernce system
ftp-velűftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/
&
www.dagostini.it/patclass/patclass
olasz szabadalmi sz m keres‹ hatnyelven
&
www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm
DSMZ
legŁjabb baktr‚ium n˘menklatŁra
&
www.dsmz.de/dsmzhome.htm
German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell
Cultures
&
www.econlit.org/subject_descriptors.html
econlit subject descriptor
gazdas gi t‚mak”r”k taxonomi ja
&
www.english.bham.ac.uk/drc/
birmingham i egyetem
dictionary research centre
&
www.ens-lyon.fr/LBMC/laudet/nomenc.html
Nuclear Receptor Nomenclature Homepage
&
www.fgdc.gov/standards/status/sub5_8html
biologiai n˘meklatŁra ‚s taxon˘miai adat
szabv nyok
&
www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/
HUGO Gene
NomenclatŁra bizotts g
minden emberi g‚nnek ‚rtelmes nevet ad˘
szervezet
&
www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/guidelines.html
Guidelines fo Human gene Nomenclatue (2002)
&
www.gutenberg.net/
free online literature
&
www.gutenberg.net/
free online literature
&
www.hgvs.org/mutnomen/
Nomenclature for the description of sequence
variations
http://lists.mokk.bme.hu/mailman/listinfo/hunglish-corpus levelez? lista
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/NNV/UN-NNV_ABC.html  
Nomenclature of Naval Vessels – hajózási értelmez? szakszótár
www.ibiblio.org/patents/ Index to manual classification of patents
www.iczn.org Zoológiai nomenklatúra, nemzetközi bizotság nómenklatúrája a www.iczn.org/code.htm helyen
www.ifla.org/VII/s29/sci.htm classification and indexing section of
international federation of library associations and instituions
www.imm.ki.se/CYPalleles/ Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele nómenklatúra bizottság
www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/revfam.html Vascular Plant Family Nomenclature
www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/pb250/nomc.html PBIO 250 jegyzet Nomenclature nemzetközi botanikai növénytan ICBN
www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/ Mouse Nomenclature Home Page MGI MOuse Genome Informatics
www.ishs.org/sci/icralist/icralist.htm Directory of ICRAs International Cultivar
Authorities ISHS Commission Registration ISHS International Society for Horticultural Science and Nomenclature
www.iupac.org/divsions/IV/IV.1/ IUPAC sucommittee on macromolecular terminology
www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html Library of congress classification outline
www.lub.lu.se/metadat/subject-help.html controlled vocabularies, thesauri and
classification systems available in the www. dc subject dublin core
www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~chris/MR/MR.html 1991 mathematics subject classification
www.nauticom.net.users/jihall/bill/ions.htm ion n˘menklatŁra
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/intro_to_universal/virus_nomenclature.html Virus Nomenclature
www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html national library of medicine
nlm classification online
www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html nemzeti park egységeinek rendszerbe foglalt
kategóriái, értelmez? szótár az egységekr?l
www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc7_1.htm ápolási módokról cikk és osztályozási kategóriák
www.oclc.org/dewey/ Dewey Services, Dewey decimal Classification
www.opm.gov/fedclass/ office of personnel management of the US gov. federal classification systems - munkakörök, foglalkozások besorolása
&
www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system Search occupational safety and health administration US department of labor - iparágak foglalkozási ágak, tevékenységek
www.peterme.com/archives/00000063.html cikk - inovation in classification peter memes
www.pitt.edu/~csna/csna.html Classification Society of North America
www.redsun.com/type/classification/ bet?típusok osztályozása
www.rtpcompany.com/info/data/number.htm RTP Company m?anyaggyártó - compounded thermoplastic products RTP product numbering company nomenclature syntax
www.shodor.org/unchem/basic/nomen/ Nomenclature, egyetemi tananyag, kémiai
www.sid.camac.uk/bca/bcahome.htm bliss clasification association honlapja
www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb4/Labs/Classification_Lab/classification_lab.h
lab.html
oszt lyoz stani tananyag
&
www.snomed.org
SNOMED International
a College of ASmerican Pathologists (CAP)
r‚szlege
szabv nyos nyelv a betegs‚gek leˇr s ra
&
www.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/csbn/
IAU Division III
Committee on Small Body Nomenclature
&
www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stclatre.thml
classification trees
tananyag
&
www.udcc.org
az eto honlapja
&
www.ukoln.ac.uk./metadata/desire/classification/
desire re 1004
te role of classification schemes in internet
resource description and discovery
&
www.uspto.gov/go/classification/
usa szabadalmi hivatalnak oszt lyoz si
rndszere
egytt van a v‚djegyekkel
&
www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/roman_names.html
R˘mai (n‚v) n˘menklatŁra
&
www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/nom.html
biobib
nomenclature of biofuel names
&
www.wave.net/upg/immigration/sic_index.html
standard inustrial classification (sic) ndex
&
www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc
ipc 7 english version
IPC Nice Vienna Locarn
nemzetk”z szabadalmi oszt lyoz s IPC
&
www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/Sites/TreeDBS/Botanic/botanic.html
Botanikai m˘nemklatŁra a f kr˘l, tudomnyo ‚s
k”znevek
&
www.worldprintmakers.com/english/nomencla.htm
Glossary of printmaking nomenclature and
abbreviations
&
www.zoonome.net/
Zoonomen
Zool˘giai n˘meklatŁra gyűjtem‚ny
&
www23.hhrdc-drhc.gc.ca/
national occupational classification
&
www23.hrdc_drhc.gc.ca/2001/e/generic/welcome.shtml
national occupational classification
of canada
&
xml.coverpages.org/classification.html
resource description and classification
xml fors 
---
Now the best use of these nomenclatures is that they are automatically suitable for the assemmbly of multi-lingual dictionaries, since they have a structure of numeric identifiers, and are therefore a professional product in comparison with wiktionary, a crazy crap, if you ask me.
Apogr 17:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating a nomeclature in a scientific discipline - 15 Sep 2004

message: 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)
thread_title: A merger with Linnaean taxonomy? - Jan 2003 - May 2004

message: 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
===The wrong title! ===
There should be more on "Linnaeus himself" at the other place (see its talk page too).
As a non-specialist (or a lay visitor to Wiki) I would expect the title Linnaean taxonomy to cover the biological taxonomy that Linnaeus set out. I would expect there links to a page with title Biological taxonomy presenting the very latest in popst-Linnaean taxonomy, including everything in this article (i.e. currently called Scientific classification) and what is presently at Linnaean taxonomy, specifically the sum total of all the ranks and "subranks" (I mean including this huge table of all the weird ones you have there, in between the main ranks in the famous diagram. 
I have put this comment there too. The title Scientific classification should be on the disambiguation page only; it is too vague for anybody to reasonably expect it to refer uniquely to one particular area (what this article does at the moment).
Iph 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? - Jun - Jul 2003

message: There should be more on "Linnaeus himself" at the other place (see its talk page too).
As a non-specialist (or a lay visitor to Wiki) I would expect the title Linnaean taxonomy to cover the biological taxonomy that Linnaeus set out. I would expect there links to a page with title Biological taxonomy presenting the very latest in popst-Linnaean taxonomy, including everything in this article (i.e. currently called Scientific classification) and what is presently at Linnaean taxonomy, specifically the sum total of all the ranks and "subranks" (I mean including this huge table of all the weird ones you have there, in between the main ranks in the famous diagram. 
I have put this comment there too. The title Scientific classification should be on the disambiguation page only; it is too vague for anybody to reasonably expect it to refer uniquely to one particular area (what this article does at the moment).
Iph 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The wrong title! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Both Scientific classification and linnaean taxonomy - Aug 2003 - Feb 2004

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Scientific" Classification"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern developments 

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