Disputatio:Biota

Viruses

The viruses might be better restricted to their separate page, with only their domain in () here!?

Plants

The plant part is still to be enhanced by classes, orders, families and typical species...

Teutonius 12:00, 25 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Biota

Well, Iacobe, this sentence is not from me, but I understand what it says. If you think its not correct, just do correct it... = Biota is the name of the category that stands at the head of the whole taxonomy of living beeings.
Teutonius 20:13, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

citrullus

Citrullus lanatus, Cucurbitaceae
(incertus):
- Campanulalaes, Asteridae
- Cucurbitales, Cucurbitanae, Rosidae
- Cucurbitales / Violales, Violanae, Dilleniidae
Teutonius 22:05, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Index

Hi Andrew, it seems you have (re)moved? some items in the index, that have been "automatically" replaced by my new versions insertion. Teutonius 22:27, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see anything that I removed except the link to Wikispecies: which was the right thing to do, I think, because there was no Wikispecies page under that name. Is there still a problem? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I guess, its not possible to build up a taxon system that satisfies all given sources. Because there are various authors (Linneus, Haeckel &ct.), so there are also various different theories on that issue, that can NOT be smoothly integrated in a whole (as I actually tried to). So I think it might be the best to shift the uncertain stuff here in the disputation page and to leave the reliable rest alone in the main page. What do you thinkTeutonius 11:25, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice to have a taxon page that describes and explains in separate sections the various competing taxon systems, showing how they conflict and to what extent they agree, with citations.--Rafaelgarcia 12:18, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine indeed! But it would take to much space (width) for a normal web-page to display, besides I mainly want to show an overview as an synoptic lookup tool. Thats also why I renamed it form system to index... But nevertheless, now as the mainframe is set up, I will give the fonts for all taxons, that I think (or that you tell me) is under debate and not clear yet. But I dont want to (and can not) give quotations for all and every single taxon in the index. Teutonius 15:02, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

So I guess we are using commons:Cronquist_System to classify Magnoliophyta/angiosperms or are we trying to combine more systems? What should I use when using/creating taxoboxes in particular articles, like in Magnoliopsida? Or is there a better place to discuss this issue? Mars412 17:04, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Protista & Protozoa

shifted to main page Biota Teutonius 00:58, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Regna

Alternative phylogeny
Unikonta: Opisthokonta - Metazoa - Mesomycetozoa - Choanozoa - Eumycota - Amoebozoa
Bikonta: Apusozoa - Rhizaria - Excavata - Archaeplastida - Chromalveolata
[1]
Teutonius 01:07, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Tuetonius is there a question here?? Or are you using the discussion page as a scratchpad? I'm not sure what all this means--Rafaelgarcia 01:43, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Of course I could also ask a qouestion - for instance: What you opinion was about euglena, protista & myxomyzota (are they animals or plants, or what?) but Im afraid nobody will answer, so I did not... Teutonius 05:45, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that particular question, but here's my generalized answer! If it is a matter of opinion, editors can write the article as follows. Either

1. Choose the answer that they consider well-founded and most likely to be true, give a footnote reference in support, and maybe a reference that discusses the problem; or
2. Set out all likely answers, with a reference for each, without making a final choice among them.

What editors should try not to do (I think) is just set out their own opinion without indicating that there's a problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:14, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

The problem is just: there is no correct and no real false classification - all depends on the criterion that one uses to set it up! Some compere the outer shape (with / without flagellum) some look inside (with / without chloroplasts) others look at the food (autotroph / heterotroph) to differ between animals and plants. All the new established regna are just virtual, no system is perfect (most protists are both some more plantlike others more animal like) - hence even genetic analysis will and can not provide 100% relyable data for trustworthy classification!!!

Of course I can translate some pages dealing with the different models of Linnaeus, Häckel aso... but Im afraid it will not be worth the labour for some 2/3? people reading it. I think most people who come here want to look up what is a "slime mould" is it a mushroom, an animal or rather a plant and this can not be explained by just prsenting different theories, but by explaining the matter (describing the concrete living beeing) in the forthcoming subpages. ;) Teutonius 18:23, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I agree. It is good to get articles started and to state some brief facts; later, as we rise to 4 or 5 potential readers (!!), it will be good to expand articles further. There's no problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

protozoa, algae & fungi

Propediem sequetur emendatio partis protozoorum, qui aduc satis confusa et imperfecta est (et in ipsam protozoorum paginam). Teutonius 16:38, 4 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
Algae et fungi mox et sequentur...Teutonius 04:03, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Nunc mox vere incipiet! Teutonius (disputatio) 11:23, 24 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

Grammatica nominis

est dicendum nomen "biota" esse nomen Neolatinae. sed hoc nomen estne singulare femininum aut plurale neutrum? aliquis scitne? qua plurima nomina taxonomiae sunt pluralia Latinae (e.g. "animalia"); qua hoc nomen "biota" videtur esse a nomini graeco "biote", quod certe est singulare femininum Maikxlx 07:38, 29 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Probe dicis, amice. Similiter habemus commentarium Ethica, sed nomen est falsum, nam rectum erit Ethice. Sic etiam fortasse Physica et Physice. IacobusAmor 13:44, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)