Talk:Scientific classification

• Old talk at Talk:Scientific classification/Archive 1 also containing the large article Creating a nomeclature in a scientific discipline from 15 Sep 2004

know

Contents

1 A merger with Linnaean taxonomy? - Jan 2003 - May 2004 2 Separation of Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? - Jun - Jul 2003 3 Both Scientific classification and linnaean taxonomy - Aug 2003 - Feb 2004 4 The species name both the Genus and species - 28 Aug 2003 5 Goals of a zoologist - Sept 2004 6 Two plus six equals seven 7 Associate pages, like Family (biology)

A merger with Linnaean taxonomy? - Jan 2003 - May 2004

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)

Separation of Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? - Jun - Jul 2003

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 I'm guessing that Linnaean is an older system superceded by the neutrally-termed scientific classification.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

Both Scientific classification and linnaean taxonomy - Aug 2003 - Feb 2004

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Could add a description of the difficulty in classifying microbes: their features are derived from direct visual observation, but include such procedural characteristics as Gram stain type, motility, ability to form spores, etc. However, given an unknown bacterium with a given set of characteristics, it is in general not possible to predict its phylogeny, toxicity, etc. Other methods, using genes, their DNA, and several types of RNA, are under development.

The species name both the Genus and species - 28 Aug 2003

I added a statement that one of the reasons why the species name is actually both the Genus and species name of the organism, is that sometimes the exact same species name (but never both Genus and species names) is used in different species (fishes are notorious for this :). There's probably a better way to note this however. Rgamble

I believe you are incorrect in your basic understanding (although what you say is correct). An organism is not a "species" in the same sense as the species level of taxonomic organisation. A species is named by the binomial Genus species — Genus being the name and species being a descriptor (an adjective). As a descriptor, there is no reason not to be reused for lots of different organisms, just like "red" could apply to shoes or cars or walls without confusion - Marshman 20:17, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Goals of a zoologist - Sept 2004

Two plus six equals seven

"Simply knowing the two-part scientific name makes it possible to determine the other six layers." What six layers?

Associate pages, like Family (biology)

The content on pages like Class (biology) and Family (biology) are almost entirely duplicates of the content here, and of each other, to the point where someone has listed one of the KPCOFGS acronyms on the latter. Instead of this duplication of effort, I'd like to suggest that they redirect here. They did at one point, but Node ue restored them over the objections of Stan and myself. We need a larger concensus on the matter, one direction or another. Josh

I wholeheartedly agree. The ones that were redirects previously should (unless any significant real work is present) be returned to redirects. Might want to mention it on WP:TOL as well, though. - UtherSRG 19:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with redirects. - MPF 22:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or to Linnaean taxonomy? 68.81.231.127 23:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This would only be correct for a small number of the links. It would be better to redirect to here and then those who are interested in the historical usage can go to the Linnaean article. - UtherSRG 01:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a lot of difference, but I'm not sure why it's incorrect. 68.81.231.127 02:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. I think the three of you, plus Stan, are enough support to justify keeping them as redirects for the time being. Much of their content isn't appropriate anyways, since it repeats info for the entire set of ranks (like the acronyms), as well as included controversial ones like domain at the top. The pages can always be reverted if some substantial info on the rank in question shows up - though I don't think it's possible for most ranks; what a family is depends on the order. They can also be changed back if some unexpected support appears here. Historically, Tannin and node had restored them from redirects, but it's clear they're a minority by themselves. Josh

• Darn it I wanted to link to Class (biology) but there's no point now. Kappa 05:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)