Template talk:SysTax

Discussion

I've removed the following text from the template because it doesn't describe well how these components relate to one another.

Schools: Cladistics (phylogenetic systematics), Evolutionary taxonomy (evolutionary systematics), Phenetics (numerical taxonomy)

Naming and describing new species: Alpha taxonomy, Species description

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.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 My opinion is that this arrangement is simplistic and out of date.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:

• Systematic Biology
• Systematic Botany
• Taxon

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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):

Zorahia (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that more people will become involved in the discussion. In the meantime I will remove the template from the pages where it appears. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A further comment: the name SysTax is a bit confusing because there is a database system for systematics and taxonomy that has the identical name. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, for more input. –Quiddity (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Working on a similar template.

I just found this template. I'm working on a similar one (User:Animalparty/Taxonomy and nomenclature), albeit more focused on Taxonomy and Nomenclature and less on the phylogentics or evolutionary context. Any comments would be appreciated, thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)