|WikiProject Tree of Life||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
The German article on this topic is so much more complete - to the point it was a past featured article. I would love to see some nice bilingual person translate some of the information on the German page into English.
- This might be a good idea if the German system of classification was even vaguely similar to the English system. I can't read German all that well, but the taxonomy is much different than anything I've ever read in English, starting with the fact that it doesn't have the same order of taxons. I'm sure there is useful material in the German articles, but adapting it to English could be a challenge. Fuzzform 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article really could do with some definition of how the kingdoms are seperated. This is what I was looking for.
It might be worth including the mnemonic "King Philip Came Over From Germany Stoned", which represents Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
I also remember King Phillip Choked On Fresh Green Spinach from my high school biology days. Rpachico 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but notice how similar the word "Taxon" is to "Taxxon". (A Taxxon is a fictional alien species in the Animorphs books.) An accidental typo of one letter could send someone elsewhere! dogman15 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A mnemonic I have never forgoten is 'Keep Penis Clean Or Forget Good Sex'. I won't put that in the main article, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to split hairs, but silk? Who the heck would ever play chess on silk? that makes zero sense and therefore is harder to remember.
Kings Play Chess On Funny Green Squares makes more of a mental image (at least for the sane).18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point, the article states here that the term was introduced for animal groups in 1926 by Adolf Bernhard Meyer. It is of course possible that it took his heirs 15 years before they had this part of his work published posthumously, but as I cannot find any other reference so far as to where the term was published, by whom, and when, my first guess is that someone did not do his homework when he made a statement to this effect in the article. A reliable source is needed here, perhaps accompanied by a link to the first place of publication. Wikiklaas 16:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just to make things easier: the addition of the paragraph was done here. The name of the biologist was originally cited as "Adolf Meyer". Because someone noticed that Adolf Meyer is a disambiguation page, the name was then changed into "Adolf Bernard Meyer" (here), probably for no other reason than that this is the only Adolf Meyer biologist about whom this Wikipedia has an article. The added paragraph was quite literally taken from this page in Taxonomy of Angiosperms by V.N. Naik. In the reference list of that work, A. Meyer is cited as the author of "Logik der Morphologie im Rahmen einer Logik der gesamten Biologie", Leipzig, 1926 (never mind the spelling errors). This was a work authored by Adolf Meyer-Abich (1893-1971), science historian and theoretical biologist. That would make sense. Now someone with access to that work just has to check whether the term was indeed introduced in that book, or find another authoritative source that backs this up. Wikiklaas 18:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- This article backs up the information as you have reconstructed it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
An excellent sentence too compact
Although preceded by Linnaeus's system in Systema Naturae (10th edition, 1758) and unpublished work by Bernard and Antoine Laurent de Jussieu, the notion of a unit-based "natural system" of biological classification was first made widely available in 1805 through the publication, as the introduction to the third edition of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Flore françoise, of Augustin Pyramus de Candolle's Principes élémentaires de botanique, an exposition of a system for the "natural classification" of plants.
This is an ideal scholarly sentence in many respects, and almost a work of art in compact register.
It just isn't right for Wikipedia, and the attention span of the average reader.
- 20-word preamble packed with Latin, French, and vintage book lore
- subject: notion
- passive, compound main verb: was made available
- SV sentence stem: the notion was made available
- 1st passive main-verb embedded modifier: was first made
- 2nd passive main-verb embedded modifier: made widely available
- four prepositional refinements: of a unit-based "natural system" of biological classification through the publication of Principes élémentaires de botanique — with scare quotes around "natural" and a big mouthful of French (rendered in foreign title caps)
- appositive qualifier also larded with prepositions (and more French, and more book lore): as the introduction to the third edition of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Flore françoise
- abstract explanatory afterthought: [this work being] an exposition of a system for the "natural classification" of plants — with "natural" scarequod again
Sure, this is an eighth-grade reading level: but only in Starfleet Academy. — MaxEnt 21:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree! Shorter sentences, straightforward words/and or include definitions or link. Peacedance (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Request for clarification on unit, but really the entire first paragraph and perhaps lead needs a rewrite.
– A unit of *what*?
– What are these units based on? (earlier physical attributes, later evolution/genomics?)
– "Population" sounds geographical. Sometimes this is the case, but not always – is another more generic word better?
– There is no hint here that a taxon can be of different levels.
How about a little context, very briefly for the lead, how did they get started, why are they continued?
There are no examples to even give the reader a *hint*.
I am a sociologist and would like to better understand the basics of taxonomy, cladistics, etc., but I really can't with the way that the articles are at this point. The introductions, at least, need to be written while imagining that the audience is a **general reader knows nothing about the topic**. That doesn't mean it can't be stuffed with fascinating information, but it does mean that terms should be defined, context and brief examples provided so the reader knows what the heck you are talking about. That also doesn't mean that the article can't get into more sophisticated detail later in the article.
I know more about this than I am implying, and could try to rewrite it myself, but I don't know enough to ensure that I am not making subtle mistakes that are misleading.
But help out the rest of us in the lead! Please! Peacedance (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Classification image spelling error
The animal classification image shows nine things, while the description says 'eight'. Fix the spelling error to make sure that it matches. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Le plus important serait le taxon lazare un sous claque comme la Queen . Et mickeal jackson je nais pas vue et le super classe . Order classe . Reptilien mais seulement des lignéa sang pure . Mon ami est sous classe mais lazare revenue 2005 . . Il est différent. Que vous être. Oui je suis content . . 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)