Talk:Hominid

Hominid/Temp[?]

---

I like the box better. I think the box should contain just KPCOF when the common name is not the scientific name; a list of species (or other child taxon) should be added when it is. --phma

Trouble with the box is that it has all those darn br tags which are tedious and are visually distracting when viewing the raw text in an edit window. I don't think that having separate table formats for the common vs scientific name would logically flow very well -- especially when the scientific name will be just a redirect to the common name. However, in cases where there is enough of a difference between the use of the common vs scientific name to warrent having separate articles, then it would be redundent to have the exact same info in both tables (or even have a table at all in the common name entry). --maveric149, Friday, July 12, 2002

I still would like to see an example where having separate common and scientific name entires is a good idea. Hominids/Hominidae sure as heck isn't one. Would any of those people who want a systematic presentation of taxonomy object if Hominidae simply redirected to Hominids, with the format it presently has, the format presently on Hominid/Temp[?], or some close relative thereof with more sections? --Josh Grosse

I can't think of a significant scientific vs common name naming conflict right now either and am content to deal with any such ambiguities on a case-by-case basis. I think its great that the genus info in right next to the text so that a reader can refer to it while reading. For example, at the end of the first paragraph it says something about closely related human relatives form the Homininae subfamily. Now, when I read that, I imediately wanted to look at a list of the members of this subfamily - and there it was, just to the right of the text. --maveric149

The table is a beautiful start, but is unfortunately somewhat cramped as far as the genus list goes. There are important critters out there with scientific names longer than Gigantopithecus and common names longer than orangutan, and the indentation for subdivisions like Homininae is important.

Hard-lining for KCOFGS is good. In such a case, should we add colons, as in Kingdom: Animalia?

--Josh Grosse

Thanks! As for the crampness, that can be dealt with by using a -1 font and if that doesn't work, then possibly using two rows per child in some visually appealing and informative mannor. The table will scale. --maveric149

Actually, the colons are an improvement (I just compared the two versions side-by-side). --maveric149

I just removed them again since that part of the table now has a vertical line separating the two columns (therefore making colons a bit redundent -- not particularly important either way). --maveric149

I pasted the new table into the article - not because I think it is either perfect or done, but because I think most of the major work has been done and we can now risk edit conflicts because the table is not in such heavy development. --maveric149

I have an idea on use of color that I think is cool -- assign a different color for each of the 5 kingdoms. Then when you enter an article you can know right away what general type of organism is being presented (unfortunately there are way too many phyla and divisions to use different colors there). This is similar to the color scheme Bryan and I have set up for the periodic table (with each series having its own color on the table and each element's table headings will have the color of its series. --maveric149

What happened to keeping the table simple? I think the dividing line between Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order and Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates could be difficult, because it ends up separating corresponding elements in the raw text. Besides, we're not doing that with the subgroups, thank goodness. -- JG

Feature creep took over -- however, if you look under the hood of barium for example, you will see that that table is totally insane compared with the relative simplicity of this table. I forsee that templates for each of the levels of classificiations would eventually have to be made (easy enough to do). The one in this article, for example, would only have to have the family name changed and the genera list swapped out to work for all the other primates.

I will think about what to do for the higher level stuff, but for now do you have any ideas on what colors should be used for which kingdoms? Here is my idea (all colors will be subdued tones -- see periodic table for examples); Plants (Green -- obvious reasons), Animals (red -- color of blood), bacteria (tan -- reminds me of the color of nutrient medium agar), fungi (gray -- many fungi cultures are a similar color -- I know, usually darker), and protests (light blue -- water-borne single-celled organisms that can be seen with a simple dissecting scope -- yeah, I know, this last justification is weak but I can't think of anything better).--maveric149

I like green plants and red animals (though not too many animals have red blood). Fungi I would make blue, I suppose the color of certain molds, but more importantly the third primary as it completes the multicellular kingdoms. Protista could be yellow, the next most prominent color, or brown, which is sort of a mix, either representing those algae whose colors haven't been taken already. I don't know about bacteria, but they might as well be gray - no nucleus, no color. :) -JG

Looks like any shade of red won't work becuase it is too similar to the color of followed links. Does this mess up your logic? I have no strong feelings on this (except in having plants being green -- but we both agree there). There should be some easy to remember logic in whatever we decide though. --maveric149

I hadn't thought of that. Red works fine on my computer, because followed links are dark magenta. Which, of course, brings to attention that link colors are a browser preference, which means that any colored background could potentially cause problems. People didn't hesitate to use red on Periodic table, though.

Well I guess it wouldn't hurt to have red then -- the link will only be invisible to those with my same browser preference after visiting the article behind the link (at which point the link has already serverd its purpose). Although I think salmon works just as well as red with the bonus that very few people will probably have their browsers set to display any links that color. I am warming to gray for bacteria -- most people will associate bacteria with filth and filth with gray (very few people have much experience with agar petri dishes so I guess tan is out for bacteria). Also, arguably the most important fungus to humans is penecillium[?] whose colonies are blue (as is common bread mold, the most visible mold for most people). So blue works for fungi. I'm not sure about protists -- either tan or yellow works for me (although I am more partial to tan for some reason). --maveric149

	Animalia	pink
	Plantae	lightgreen
	Fungi	lightblue
	Protista	khaki
	Monera	lightgrey

So...with the table in place, does anyone object to Hominidae redirecting here? -- Fait accompli! Yay!

Already did that before I saw you message. I really like the new format -- they classification info is really important to have to the right of the text. Most useful. -- maveric149

I've mostly had to be quiet on this part of the discussion since I've had no experience with box design, and how much can I possibly add when something seems to be heading in a positive direction? Does anyone have any opinion about showing Taxonomic Serial Numbers (TSN's) in the chart? ITIS has been happily assigning serial numbers to every taxon. The intent and justification is comparable to the one about FIPS for geographical names. Eclecticology, Sunday, July 14, 2002

Yes, I think that would be most useful. I have been thinking about adding another section to the table just above the classification that has the common name and scientific name. TSNs could go right below that. --maveric149

I don't think it's a good idea. Taxonomists in general don't use them, and there's no accepted authority from which they can be assigned, or in many places even a standard classification onto which they can be affixed. Where would they come from, and what good would they do? We would have to copy ITIS directly, which limits flexibility and only really provides info about ITIS, or make them up ourselves, which provides nothing. -- JG

OK, if its not used much at all, then its presence really isn't needed in the table. What do you think about having a separate section with the common and scientific names? I know this info is a bit redundent, but I am trying to think of a better place to put images and if we had another section above the classification then the image could go into a cell right under the name section. --maveric149

If we want the images above the classification, mav, why don't we just put them at the top, like I just did on Nematoda? It seems to me we want the table as short as possible, first to leave room for the classification, second because tables running on beyond articles are aesthetically unappealing, and third because clarifications are not possible within such a short space (e.g. the classification on Mollusca). So if you think adding the common name is genuinely a good idea, I will by all means support that, but don't do it because of formatting. -JG

That will work -- I really like the way Nematoda looks now. However, I will experiment with a name section and see if that works for the table. --maveric149

It remains to be seen just how much the TSN's will be used. It is a North American interagency initive, which is working to expand on a worldwide basis. As standard references they must necessarily have a single source. Any discussion to somhow include common names shold include something about how to treat synonyms. Eclecticology, Sunday, July 14, 2002

---

I like the new table. Should Sahelanthropus[?] be added to it? Vicki Rosenzweig, Sunday, July 14, 2002

Thanks. Very good question - I contemplated that myself, but haven't a clue as to where that genus should go. Its "discovery" is so new and hasn't been really confirmed yet beyond passing the peer review needed for publicaiton. It may turn out to be false lead, but if it is true, then the whole list will have to be redone -- it may turn out that some of the Homininae will have to be moved out of that subfamily (posibly out of Hominids altogether).--maveric149

---

I'm thinking of redirecting Pongo to the orangutan article, along the same lines as gorilla (which badly needs expansion, but that requires research, not just linking). Before I do, is there a reason not to? Vicki Rosenzweig

No objection here - unless I am mistaken genus Pongo only has one species in it so there is no need to have separate articles for the genus and the species. There might be an extinct member of Pongo though... --maveric149