Hello, ELP-PhD! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey just a note: the change you made to the taxobox is causing problems in Bird taxoboxes, e.g. Bald eagle. In particular, it seemed to take Aves out of that taxobox entirely. If you care about the details of why, I'll tell you my theory, but it isn't really very interesting. In any case, I reverted it. Also, it seems like Dinoguy2 is disputing your change. For those two reasons, please discuss at Template_talk:Taxonomy/Aves#Class_vs._Clade what we want these taxoboxes to all look like, then we'll figure out how to do it correctly. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I think you are confused about the different classification systems which use classes and clades. These refer mainly to two separate systems. Many modern scientists, especially paleontologists, no longer use the term "class" (or roder, or family, or kingdom, etc.). Rather, they use "clade" for every group. so it is not correct to say "Birds are a Clade within the Class Reptilia. This IS the consensus of vertebrate systematists/phylogenists. To state otherwise is to ignore several decades of science." as you did in your recent edit summary. Aves cannot simultaneously be a clade and be within a class, these terms come from separate systems of taxonomy. If Aves is a clade, then so is Reptilia. If Aves is a class, then so is reptilia. There's no such thing as an "invalid" class. Either the entire system of class, order, family is invalid, which many think it should be, or its not, which many biologists also think. Since both are used by different sets of scientists, the consensus on Wikipedia has been to retain ranks like class for neontology articles (concerning living groups of organism) and use clades for extinct groups and/or where no rank is available. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have something of a point-- many, but not all, modern systematists have discontinued the use of taxonomic ranks (Class, Order, et cetera). This is known as "rank-free systematics". However, the traditional taxonomic ranks (e.g., Class) and the term "clade" can, and are, simultaneously used. To be a valid, a taxonomic group (whether given a traditional rank or not) must be a clade (i.e., a monophyletic group). So, the Mammalia (the sister-group to the Reptilia) is BOTH a Class and a clade.
However, there are several problems with using ranks. First, there are many more valid groups than there are ranks. This has been a problem ever since Linnaean Taxonomy was formalized, but has become more and more of a problem as modern phylogenetic techniques have allowed us to tease out the relationships within many (most?) of the old taxonomic ranks. When we didn't have any well-accepted hypotheses about the relationships within the Reptilia there wasn't a need for the number of names we can now apply to this group. But, with the greater number of fossils collected over time, the advent of cladistics, and the development of genetic techniques, we now have many more nodes (i.e., clades) than ranks. Second, as we have applied the techniques and rules of Evolutionary Phylogenetics (essentially the Cladistic framework), many of the older taxa have become invalid. This is often because they result in their parent groups becoming paraphyletic, as is the case in the Class Reptilia and the Class Aves. Aves is a proper clade (i.e., a monophyletic group), but Reptilia is not if Aves are excluded from Reptilia. For Reptilia to be a valid clade it MUST include Aves, otherwise it is paraphyletic. Some bristle at the idea of "demoting" Aves (or any other cherished group), but Reptilia and Aves cannot both be valid taxonomic Classes. We might consider keeping Aves as a Class and elevating Reptilia to something higher (e.g., Superclass, Subphylum, et cetera), but that presents a suite of other problems. Third, many folk can't quite divorce themselves from the notion that highly derived groups shouldn't be given some sort of status based on their evolutionary "grade" (as opposed to their clade). It is obvious that birds are quite different from other reptiles, but they are still within the Clade Reptilia. Likewise, humans are still within the clade that contains the other "Great Apes" (Pongo, Gorilla, and Pan). I that case the old taxon Pongidae was found to be paraphyletic if it didn't include the Hominidae. The resolution was to include Pongo, Gorilla, and Pan within the Hominidae. This was done because of taxonomic precedence, the rules of which don't apply to the Reptilian-Aves case.
So, what are we left with in this case? Birds are obviously a clade of very derived reptiles. Any well accepted phylogeny of reptiles proposed in the last several decades (since at least the 1980s) places the origin of birds well within the dinosaurs. In light of this, keeping Aves as a Class makes little sense; to do so would involve rewriting huge chunks of vertebrate taxonomy. However, recognizing that Aves is a clade within the Class Reptilia (without worrying about the rank of Aves) solves the problem. Using both the traditional Linnaean ranks, and recognizing clades within those ranks, is done by a number of modern researchers. It might be a bit easier (or at least "cleaner") in some respects to just ditch ranks altogether (i.e., use a rank-free taxonomy), but many evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, et cetera still use ranks to some extent. As such we are left with something of a "hybrid" system of taxonomy, with ranks used for many well accepted clades (e.g., Class Mammalia, Class Reptilia, Phylum Mollusca, et cetera) and "Clade" used to designate monophyletic groups for which traditional ranks just don't suffice (usually because we just don't have enough ranks for all the recognized clades; e.g., Aves).ELP-PhD (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You have a pattern of editing in a few places where you make a change (fine), then someone reverts it and asks for a discussion, then you simply revert their edit, and so on back and forth. Instead of doing this, if someone reverts your change, please seek to engage that person in a discussion so that everyone who cares can come to a consensus about what the article should look like. In other words, please discuss on the talk page rather than in a series of self-reverting edit summaries, if you will. These "edit wars", as they are called, are generally seen as extremely aggressive in Wikipedia, and I must warn you at this point, also, that if you continue doing this you are likely to be blocked for a period of time. Thanks, and let me know if I can clarify any of this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made a simple edit, and gave the reason for that edit (i.e., Aves is not a valid taxonomic Class, and has hot been considered such for decades). All the reverts gave no cogent reason for such. This is not a matter of opinion or some "cutting edge" debate in evolutionary biology. This is long-settled. I would expect anyone editing (or reverting the edits of others) to have a passing familiarity with the topic, and this subject can be found in ANY Introductory College Biology text from at least the past twenty-five years (and probably further back than that). Now, exactly what we should call the Aves (Order, Superorder, et cetera, or just Clade) is another debate. But, Aves is most certainly NOT "a Class within the Class Reptilia" (as much as it pains me to even type such a phrase). ELP-PhD (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't hearing me. We simply do not resolve editorial disputes in this manner. I'm disappointed that you have totally disregarded my warning here. Stop now, or you will be blocked.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NO. You aren't hearing me. I have YET to see a cogent argument supporting Aves as a valid taxonomic Class. Organisms CANNOT simultaneously be in two taxa of the same rank. Therefore, Aves cannot be BOTH a group within the Class Reptilia (as any modern treatment places them) and their own Class. This is not "cutting edge science". This is basically Freshman-level college Biology (Biol 101, if you will). You are choosing to ignore DECADES of science on this topic because it might ruffle some feathers (pun intended). This is a perfect example of why I tell my students to ignore Wikipedia. As the saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." ELP-PhD (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with what I said? Look – you seem to be having a really frustrating time trying to edit here, and I apologize if I have contributed to that. Please let me know if I can help with anything. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
