Template talk:Taxonomy/Deltapodus
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Make up a name
[edit]"Make up a name"? That's not science... Have you got a source for this parent? Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a stegosaurian trace, as per the ref in the article. I didn't see a formal family name, so followed the structure of, e.g. Hadrosauroidipedia and Anchisauripodidae, on the assumption that this is the correct construction. Do set it to "ichnos" if not. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- In zoology it's unacceptable to use taxa which have not been formally described and approved by the ICZN. With ichnology being a branch of zoology, it does follow a structured taxonomy as well (although numerous versions exist, and none to my knowledge are ICZN-approved) using formally described taxa. Wikipedia's become quite a popular resource for taxonomy, so we'd best not introduce undescribed taxa. I'm glad you mentioned this in the edit summary so that it didn't go unnoticed.
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- In zoology it's unacceptable to use taxa which have not been formally described and approved by the ICZN. With ichnology being a branch of zoology, it does follow a structured taxonomy as well (although numerous versions exist, and none to my knowledge are ICZN-approved) using formally described taxa. Wikipedia's become quite a popular resource for taxonomy, so we'd best not introduce undescribed taxa. I'm glad you mentioned this in the edit summary so that it didn't go unnoticed.
