This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
taxonomy and the
phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
The "Schools" list gives the impression that these approaches cannot be combined, that cladistics=phylogenetic systematics and that phenetics=numeric taxonomy. The second list suggests that Alpha taxonomy and Species description are separate. Actually, I don't see a need for this template.
Hello, Sminthopsis84! I think that the School section should be maintained in the template SysTax, maybe with other name (Methodologies?). In relation with the distinction of the study of biodiversity in three parts, 1. Naming and describing new species, 2. Performing evolutionary studies and 3. Doing classifications, I made it based in Brusca's Invertebrates, after Mayr sayings. Even if Mayr himself has said that it is a gross simplification, and that these three stages overlap and cycle back themselves, I think it is a good and explicative way to see systematics/taxonomy. So, I think it's better mantain Naming and describing new species section too (with other name? Documenting biological diversity?). Moreover, as the definitions of taxonomy an systematics vary (some consider it synonyms; other consider taxonomy being just parts 1 and/or 3, and systematics being part 2; Europeans tend to use "systematics", whereas North Americans tend to use "taxonomy"; etc...), this artificial distinction is perhaps a conciliatory view on this subject. You may have more knowledge on this, so, what's your opinion?
Zorahia (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi, I'd like to see more contributors discussing this matter, and that will probably happen in time as people notice the changes that you have made to the pages where you have inserted the navbox. My opinion is that this arrangement is simplistic and out of date. As just one example, it is no longer considered appropriate to name and describe new species before the evolutionary studies and the systematics that underlies classifications have been done. Naming and describing new species is part of making classifications ("doing classifications" is not good English). My opinion is that this is a subject that needs clear, deep, correct, philosophical discussion, which can only come from contributors who have studied the subject in considerable depth. There are many books on this subject, and they are difficult to read because it is inherently a difficult subject, for example:
Ghiselin, Michael T. 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. State University of New York Press
Zakharov, Boris. 2013. Nomosystematics – A closer look at the theoretical foundation of biological classification. SIRI Scientific Press. isbn:978-0-9574530-0-5
However, much of the discussion goes on in journals rather than books, and if you have access to a university library, I would recommend that you read very large amounts of material from such journals as:
Hello Sminthopsis84, I spect the same (I'm lazy to study this matter...). Well, I think that describing new species and making classifications (after evolutionary studies) are distinct things, althoug the description and the initial classification are usually published together. Moreover, the order of the steps are not too strict (Mayr: it is a gross simplification, and these three stages overlap and cycle back themselves). I'd like to propose this provisory template (while we wait more discussions):