Talk:Incertae sedis

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses Low‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The present form looks like overkill. I don't see that the "example" illustrates anything. This entry looks like it would benefit by cleaning? Brya 09:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree if you chose to reduce the example a bit or change it, but the explanations as to why a taxon might be labelled as incertae sedis are vital to the article. What's left without them is just a dictionary definition and not encyclopedic concerning a topic that definitely has potential to be encyclopedic. --Aranae 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this as close to being complete nonsense as I have ever seen. Firstly, the so-called "example" features humans. Anything involving the taxonomy of humans has far too much baggage to be suitable for anything other than stirring up controversy and making taxonomy look bad. Secondly, the example goes to great length to present a taxonomy and then blithely proceeds "if this were not the case, and we were to write an SF scenario we could think up an imaginary case of incertae sedis". So even by its own admission it is the opposite of an example.

If you want a real example why not provide one? Brya 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly doesn't help that it says "if modern humans were newly discovered". It would seem to be greatly preferable to use a real example than to use such nonsense as a fictional example in a confusing way.68.94.91.172 (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllum?!

The lead refers to undefined phyllum but all examples - to undefined lesser taxa. No matter how vague Homo is, would anyone doubt attribution to Phyllum Chordata? NVO (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you correct it? Also, "phylum" only has one L. Booger-mike (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The example of Homo being placed incertae sedis in Hominidae is a bad example. It includes a subfamily Homininae, containing gorillas and chimpanzees, but the subfamily Homininae is based on the genus Homo. Without that genus included, it would have to be called Paninae or Gorillinae (I think Paninae has priority, but I am not sure). Perhaps it would be better to take a less anthropocentric view of the world, and give the example of chimpanzees being placed incertae sedis in the family, beside Homininae and Ponginae; this should probably be followed through into the next example as well. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be even better to give a real-world example and not a contrived one involving hominids? Ucucha 06:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Do you know of an example? Should we ask at WT:TOL? I think the original author's intention was probably to use the same taxa in examples at different ranks, rather than bamboozling the reader with dozens of new taxa, but I agree that genuine examples where taxa have been placed incertae sedis (even if they have since been placed elsewhere) would be preferable. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One example I can think of is Gondwanatheria, which was ranked as a suborder of Multituberculata in 1996 and reclassified as Mammalia incertae sedis in 1999 (and still ranked as a suborder). Ucucha 10:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incertae sedis. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302073659/http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html to http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html

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) 02:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incertae sedis. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727162339/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2016/Pages%20713-719.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2016/Pages%20713-719.pdf

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) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Foogenus" barspecies

I see pages like "Crocodylus" affinis where the genus is in quotes. This isn't explained in the articles in question. It seems similar but not identical to what is described in Incertae sedis#In zoological nomenclature. If it were explained properly in Incertae sedis#In zoological nomenclature then one could add a footnote in "Crocodylus" affinis et al linking to the explanation. jnestorius^(talk) 20:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching pagenames beginning with " gives these:

jnestorius^(talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incertae sedis vs enigmatic taxa

I was under the impression the two things were related but different. In my view a taxon might be incertae sedis but not enigmatic. For example, the New World vultures in the picture example were surely incertae sedis but there was nothing enigmatic about them; they were well known birds awaiting for some precise classification. An enigmatic taxon is to me a taxon where even basic affinities are unclear and where are very few data that could help solve the issue. For example Paleodictyon, Crowsoniella or Sialomorpha, where either the lack of an organism corresponding to the traces or the paucity and status of specimens makes it very hard to come to a solid conclusion.

It is entirely possible however this is only my own quirk and in truth the terms are synonyms. I am asking this because I see that lots of subcategories of Category:Incertae sedis are actually named "Enigmatic... taxa" and I find it very confusing. Can anyone help? Thanks! cyclopia ^speak! 11:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]