Jump to content

Talk:Linnaean taxonomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional taxonomic categories

[edit]

The species article included the additional taxonomic(?) categories of Subphylum, Suborder, Superfamily, Subfamily, and Subspecies. Do these belong under "Linnaean taxonomy", and thus should they be discussed here? Or do they fall under something else? --Ryguasu 08:08 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

"Cling to"

[edit]

" . . . some botanists still cling to this rank . . ." Isn't that a bit strong? How about, ". . . some botanists still prefer this rank . . ." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.58.18 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linnaean taxonomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

clarification needed about alternatives

[edit]

One can read "linked together to construct a phylogeny. This is largely what is meant by the term 'Linnaean taxonomy'" (under section "Alternatives"). I consider that the word "This" (in "phylogeny. This is largely") needs a clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.112.155 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially obsolote?

[edit]

with cladistics this could be considered outdated 2800:2145:B400:56A:7820:394C:C043:83D5 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Trivially, even under the PhyloCode, species are named using Linnaean binomials, but more significantly, all the major taxonomic databases use multiple Linnaean ranks – just follow the links in the taxonbars in any article about an extant taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tiama 196.47.133.25 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]