This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit
the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the
Help Menu or
Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
This page 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
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
A classification is most emphatically not a scientific hypothesis. It is not testable. All manner of splitting and lumping can be done even if everyone agrees on the shape of the phylogenetic tree and even if everyone agrees on whether or not to use which paraphyletic taxa. None of the three codes of Linnean nomenclature requires any science (such as phylogenetics) to be done before proposing a new classification. David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:15 CEST | 2006/5/12
I don't understand Marjanović's objection. Modern classification is phylogentic and is based on a hypothesis about relatedness. That doesn't mean it's all correct. And there are historical holdovers (such as distinguising between birds and reptiles). But most classifications are best guesses, or consensus decisions at least and, as I say, based on a hypothesis about relatedness. Splitting and lumping is an issue, but that doesn't alter the relatedness of organisms. Just as you may not acknowledge a 5th cousin as being part of your "family," she is still distantly related to you. What is David Marjanović proposing specifically?
Eperotao16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree. The three domains are, I believe, the Eubacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya (which are descended from the Archaea). Within each domain are several kingdoms. The kingdoms Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia are, of course, Eukarya. But the other domains also contain 3 or more kingdoms as well, I believe. I'm just writing from memory. But the taxonomy here is surprising (ly out of date) given the precision of the rest of the box. The three domains have been well accepted for close to a decade now, possibly longer.
Eperotao16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The conservation status on the taxoboxes I've seen isn't directly under the common name anymore, but is instead under the photo, someone who has the time and knowhow should change this page to reflect that...
Whirlingdervish07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)reply
For taxoboxes that describe a rank, not a species, the taxobox will list the sub-ranks.
Some of these may be marked with a dagger, which I believe means that all members
of this sub-rank are
extinct, for example
Hominini. However, this is not stated. We should add a note to the article about rank boxes, and the annotations mean. I think i've also seen an astrisk used.
CS Miller12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Probably because in 2005 when
File:Taxobox example.png was uploaded, the project had used #FFC3D2 for animals. At some point we switched to #D3D3A4. I guess no one bothered to update the image, but the page was updated with the correct colors further down the page. This page used to be of more use when each taxobox had a link to it in the corner. I'm not sure how useful it is now. Should it maybe be labeled with something like {{historical}}?
Rkitko(
talk)02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)reply