Talk:Scientific classification

A new classification table is at Hominid. --maveric149

I took out that insect orders end in -odea, because with only five or so exceptions, they don't.

I was talking about those orders that are named for genera. The divisions of fungi aren't named for genera, AFAICT, but it's specified in the ICBN that if they do, they end in -mycota (as the existing ones do). The endings of orders aren't specified by the ICZN, but those of fishes and birds are formed by adding -formes to the stem of a genus name. The orders of insects that are named for genera end in -odea; others end in -ptera or other endings. -phma

---

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

---

In the classification of Homo sapiens, minor morphological differences below the significance of Species are known as Subspecies, Races, and Subraces. Examples are the Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa, containing the Sanid (Bushmen) race; and the Lappish subrace of arctic Europe.

Two things wrong with this. One, subspecies don't apply specifically to people, but to all sorts of different things, as with subclasses, subfamilies, and the like. Two, I don't believe there has been any concensus on how or even whether to divide Homo sapiens in such a manner, so examples are not going to be especially worthwhile.

-- Josh Grosse

Please sign your entries, so I can associate a person with the statements. -- done.

As to your first point, if the 'subspecies' classification applies to "all sorts of different things", then it should be added to the "seven layers" to make eight layers. In any case, I'd like to see a professional's definition of this term, not just the ramblings of me, a layperson.

The difference is that subspecies isn't a primary layer, in the sense that every organism is assigned to one category for each of the seven ranks, but not everything is divided into subspecies. There are a lot of ranks like that - off the top of my head

• Domain
• Kingdom
• Subkingdom
• Superphylum
• Phylum / Division
• Subphylum / Subdivision
• Superclass

• Class
• Subclass
• Infraclass
• Superorder
• Order
• Suborder
• Infraorder
• Superfamily
• Family
• Subfamily
• Tribe
• Subtribe
• Genus
• Subgenus
• Species
• Subspecies
• Race
• Subrace

have all definitely been used to rank taxa - probably there are a few more, and nobody would be confused by the introduction of something like infratribes if they were truly needed. I think you can agree it would be needless obfuscation to try and expand the main seven to include all these extras.

As to the second point, I agree that a formal, accepted classification of the morphological subtypes of Man has yet to be done. However, the term 'race', and to a lesser extent, 'subrace', is, I believe, widely used in the literature of physical anthropology, among other sciences, and therefore also belongs in the article.

You may disagree with my example, but you should not remove 'race' from the article, because without morphological classification, overall classification is imprecise. Cladistics, for example, become confused in the absence of consideration of subspecies, race, and subrace. David 21:01 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

That's fair. I'll mention them in the article, and should a better example come up somebody can add it.

Thanks. I've made some unrelated additions that you might want to review for accuracy. David 18:53 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

---

I've added some details to the example of the classification of Homo sapiens. I have put them in the correct order, but I do not know the 'sub' names of the classification labels. Please, someone, add these. David 16:12 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

I've added ranks for the lower two groups. The other taxa you've added don't have definite ranks, so I've taken them out.

Josh Grosse, thank you. David 19:49 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

---

Is there any reason this article shouldn't be merged with Linnaean taxonomy? --Ryguasu 01:24 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

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 Menchis 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)