Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/ 2

Biology portal

I encourage you all to help with maintaining the biology Wikiportal connected with this project! Ausir 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Open tasks list

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution FAR

Evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

Would it be possible to have assessment information added to the template? Richard001 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Punctuated equilibrium GAR

Punctuated equilibrium is up for WP:GA/R#Punctuated_equilibriumGood Article Review. Despite WP:CITE stating that Harvard referencing is acceptable practice on Wikipedia, (and being repeatedly told so) the reviewers are suggesting that the method of citation be changed. Cite.php has been mentioned... It would be A Lot Of Work to change the format of citation to the cite.php method, but looking at Charles Darwin, I see that there are a number of Harvard referencing templates that could be used in punk ekk. So, I guess I'm looking for consensus (help would also be appreciated, too!) on changing the citing method in punk ekk from plain Harvard to "Harvard using templates". Thank you. - Malkinann 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

help on articles please

I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.--Urthogie 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology? Jvbishop 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It already has plenty of sociology, what it needs is an explanation of the biology involved.--Urthogie 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

H. Allen Orr?

If anyone here is familiar with the work of an H. Allen Orr, then this article is currently in need of immediate attention. Orr wrote a critical review about Richard Dawkins and that has been the central focus of the article, while the rest of it is essentially copy-pasted from various sources. It would be extremely helpful, if someone who actually knows anything about this man, would come over and help in writing a real biography or oversee that this becomes a fair depiction of Mr. Orr's all round contribution to science and the debate on science and religion. (He is a prominent critic of intelligent design as well as critical of Dawkins and Dennett, but primarily, he should be noted for his work in evolutionary genetics.) Thank you for the help! --Merzul 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hominid intelligence

Hi, Hominid intelligence is a very poor article and should be rewritten. I just linked to it from Mind and can't find a more appropriate article to link to from the Developmental history of the human mind section. — goethean ॐ 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Category:Anti-creationism

Hi. I have asked that discussion be brought about Category:Anti-creationism. CFD ENTRY.

I would appreciate input as to how best to define or deal with this category.--ZayZayEM 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Project Banner

I have recently created a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology which has assessment parameters. I notice that your existing banner does not. Given the amount of overlap in the biology sector, and the concerns expressed elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners, I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in perhaps utilizing the Biology banner, with a "drop down tab" for this project, perhaps similar to the {{WPMILHIST}} banner. Doing so would permit for individual assessment for each project, as that is something the Military History banner does, while at the same time reducing the amount of banner "clutter" on talk pages. If you would be interested in such an arrangement, please let me know and I will work to revise the Biology banner to include the "drop-down" tab and make the other arrangements required for your project, as well as theirs, to have assessment data available. Thank you. John Carter 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Article merge ?

Frozen plasticity. Nothing novel in content. Shyamal 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed

I would like to seek advice from anyone in this WikiProject. I feel quite passionate against a section of an article, and in some way, against the whole article as it stands. I would like to hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries which is inside the article List of extinct animals of Europe, because I believe it uses political terms to classify extinct animals, as if Falkland Island Fox is a British extinct subject or a Lava Mouse is a Spanish national. I would propose that we should use scientific terms, such as geographical or geological terms. So if an animal became extinct on the Falkland Islands we should classify it as a American, or at least, a South American extinction and not a European country dependant. The poor animal was never dependant on any country, not even now. I believe this is a use of Human nationalistic pride over extinct animals that never lived in those political constructs because in the first place, they still did not exist. I would propose that we should delete the section hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries just like other articles such as List of extinct animals of Catalonia, List of extinct animals of the Netherlands. I would only accept articles such as List of extinct animals of the British Isles or List of extinct animals of Europe if they use the geographical or geological term. I would even suggest to merge List of extinct animals of Europe with List of extinct animals of Asia into List of extinct animals of Eurasia , because it is a more truly scientific term. Anyway, I would like to know what do you people of the Wikiproject think? Thanks. Francisco Valverde 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've run across this, and think it's both interesting and tricky. First, we should be able to agree that species have a geographic label, not a political one, and if a territory is disputed both names added with UN recognition first.

The second and trickier issue is how broad the label should be. It's ridiculous to label a Galapagos finch as South American or even Ecuadorean when it may occupy just a couple of islands. And talking of islands, there's a big difference, biogeographically speaking, between islands on the continental shelf and true oceanic islands.

Finally, are we happy to indicate just present distribution? Consider Equus caballus, for example. There are many cases where we need to distinguish between present distribution and, for instance, pre-Neolithic distribution. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

Why is there a wikiproject for evolutionary biology, and one for medical genetics, but there isn't one for just "genetics"? The structure of these wikiprojects seems weird to me. Genetics has been labeled as being part of this project, but that doesn't sit well with me -- it's also within the scope of Medical Genetics, and Molecular and Cellular Biology; it seems to me that "Evolutionary biology" is mostly a subset of Genetics and not the other way around.

I'd like to contribute to wikipedia (well, I already am), but I'd also like to do it in a collaborative way, and I just don't know where to go most of the time. Some examples of my confusion: I'm working on Genetics right now, where do I go to get advice on what to add? I've tried to solicit advice, but it doesn't seem to be working, so I'm flying blind right now. Also, there's a number of genetics articles that need improvement, and images I think are needed, is there some page where people can contribute requests to a list with comments about what sort of improvement is needed? (The generated "articles needing attention" lists are confusing, aren't sorted by date and are lacking comments.) Thanks... Madeleine 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of Evolution

Hi everybody, comments and suggestions on this core topic are welcome. Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Digital ecology

I wikified this article after a fashion (it was languishing in articles needing wikifying). It makes very little sense to me. I understand that Lynn Margulis' views are controversial, but this is not yet reflected in the article, which could have a "criticism" section. Perhaps it even needs merging. I'm hoping you people will know what to do with it. Thanks. Itsmejudith 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Banner template

I've created a redirect using {{EBWP}} if anyone wants to use that instead - it's a little easy to type out and remember. I like to keep template names as simple as possible. If anyone at this project is interested in creating an assessment scheme that would be great too - I like to rate articles and find a banner that doesn't allow that function of little use. I created one for ecology {{See Template:Ecology) which seems to do the trick, even though I know virtually nothing about templates. Someone can probably improve the system if it needs it but it's great to have a system up and running so we can identify the areas that need the most work. Richard001 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note:Added a shortcut to the project too (WP:WPEB).

Sorry, I'm too impatient for this so I've gone ahead and created an assessment field in the template now based on the ecology template. Hopefully it will work properly and hopefully you all here don't mind me doing so (the assessment system will need to be set up but it isn't too much work). Richard001 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vestigiality

Could someone comment on Darwin's views on vestigial structures on the talk page? I'm confused over several passages in Origin of Species and Descent of Man. My reading of his work has lead me to assume he believed there was a Lamarckian aspect to inheritance due to his use of phrases like 'the inherited effects of use and disuse'. Could someone familiar with his work and views please confirm that this was not his viewpoint, and perhaps explain to me how the passages should be read? Richard001 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions

1. I suggest that we create a larger, better structured article for molecular evolution. Someone would be interested to help me create a framework from the article ?
2. About the article on Fitness (biology). Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's a huge debate in theoretical ecology about the best measure of fitness; carrying capacity, intrinsic rate of growth, lifetime reproductive output, et cetera... The article is very interesting, but it's only about population genetics. I'm wondering if there's a reason why the perspective from ecology is not included.

-PhDP 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Frost, blond hair blue eyes, etc.

Hi, there's a question about this research at WT:ETHNIC. I poked around a bit and came up empty-handed, so it's looking kinda fringe-theory to me.. but hey, I'm a linguistics guy, what would I know? :-) So.. am I right? Thanks Ling.Nut 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

hi, i have created this page very recently (18th july 2007) and now i am willing to nom. this page for FAC. is there anything i can do in order to improve this page. please leave your comments on the article's talkpage. thankyou, Sushant gupta 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking input on "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" article

If anyone here knows something about "The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems", please comment at its AFD. A guide to deletion discussions is here. Thanks!--Chaser - T 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Joining up

Is it possible that I can be signed up to this project? I can't promise a huge amount of participation as I'm a little swamped with family and work but it is my field and I'm eager to contribute in some way. Thanks. AlanD 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just add your name to this list. --Aranae 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AlanD 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal's enthusiastic "See also" contributions

Hi, I think some of User:Atulsnischal's contributions to "See also" sections might be a bit over-enthusiastic. I invite inspection. Pete.Hurd 05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Evolutionary biology

I have created this portal a bit recently only. it is requested to add the page on your watchlist please. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics/Dysgenics in the Human article

I'm not very happy with this addition. Could I ask for some second opinions at Talk:Human#Lame_.22Dysgenics.22_Section? Thanks Tim Vickers 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Rosalind Picard

She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.

There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Plant evo devo

Hey all...I am currently working through the WP:PLANTS project on Plant evo devo article.Would those interested please get in touch with me, so that there r more hands working on the same...? Please see the discussion page on Plant evo devo for the link to the subproject...That would be great! Gauravm1312 22:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about: Evolution of human intelligence

I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article Evolution of human intelligence. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence:

• Mankind Quarterly
• Richard Lynn
• Linda S. Gottfredson
• Philippe Rushton

It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted reacher has little to do with theories of race. Could some one take a look at it and suggest how to revise it, or perhaps where to merge the material in this article? futurebird 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution

the following article has been nominated for fac. kindly leave your comments please. Sushant gupta (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Evolutionary relay

Resolved

Evolutionary relay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary relay (3 December 2007 – 11 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Smilodon needs review / cleanup

Smilodon could use review / cleanup. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Last common ancestor/Most recent common ancestor

Hi there, a two-person discussion is underway on the talk page of Last Common Ancestor on the correct definition and application of these terms. Could somebody with some knowledge of these terms contribute to a third party comment section there? Tom Schmal (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Biocultural evolution

I recently created the article for Biocultural evolution and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology and wanted to bring it to the attention of this project since it is a multidisciplinary topic. Peace-out. --Woland (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So it's the interaction between cultural and biological evolution? Sounds interesting. Richard001 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi folks, I've started a new article on the 1860 Oxford evolution debate and I'd appreciate your input. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Definitely one for DYK. Richard001 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good show Dm--Woland (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider, I think it's a very informative article. Well done! I suggest expanding and improving it to Featured Article status, so it can be featured on the main page on June 30, 2010, 150 years to the day after the debate. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to create a WikiProject: Genetic History

I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject (or WikiSubProject), WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:

Description

A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.

Rationale

• My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.

There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History

Thanks, Jheald (talk) Jheald (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetics FAC

I've nominated Genetics as a featured article candidate. I invite anyone interested to review, make comments, and make suggestions here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Genetics Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone feel like re-evaluating "dysgenics"?

The article on dysgenics has grown quite a bit since the last rating; does someone want to review it? Harkenbane (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have grown that much. What is really needed is a discussion about which articles we should and shouldn't have about the subject of eugenics. I think an article on the scientific aspects of eugenics might be a good idea (along with a sister article on the ethical aspects, making clear the distinction between fact and value), but dysgenics is such an activist term (like genetic pollution)... I used to think the term was scientific for some reason, but it's really just the opposite of eugenics, and like the latter includes both questions of fact (science) and value. A sociology banner would be just as appropriate as the EB one.

I don't know if we should keep dysgenics or not, but I probably wouldn't give it any higher rating than it has at the moment. I haven't given it a thorough read though, and I know not nearly enough to say much on its quality even if I did. Richard001 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Footer: evolution of Fungi

I notice that there's no specific Wikipedia article on Fungal evolution. Perhaps the Basic topics in evolutionary biology footer should link to Fungus#Evolutionary_history, or is it necessary to wikilink a specific article page in this case?

I mention it only because there is at least some detail on the evolutionary history of Fungi on the above link, while as it stands, anyone clicking on the link in the Template will get nothing.

Regards.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a template about basic topics in evolutionary biology. In my opinion it already has too many links. How is the evolution of the ear a basic topic in evolutionary biology? What about the evolution of the tongue? Insect antennae? Richard001 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of mammals

Heads up and a shout out to all. Evolution of mammals is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Others are invited to contribute. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

List of transitional fossils and proposed list of evolutionary series

I was trying to devise a more aesthetically pleasing way of organizing the list of transitional fossils and came up with a table that looks like the sample below. I was posting here hoping to bring some attention to it and maybe get some feedback. Comments, criticisms and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

The Fish → Tetrapods Evolutionary Series
Appearance	Taxa	Relationships	Status	Description	Image
385 Ma	Genus: Eusthenopteron
380 Ma	Genus: Panderichthys
375 Ma	Genus: Tiktaalik

Also, I noticed that there wasn't a whole lot of diversity in terms of different lineages on that page. It seemed very much like its contributors wanted to focus only on the highest scale, most widely known, most emblematic transitional series. I think that's an unfortunate approach.

My personal opinion is that a supplemental page should be created to house an organized miscellany of documented, lower taxonomic ranked, less well known series of transitional forms. I think it could be called "List of evolutionary series" and would be a valuable repository of information about transitional series that might not normally receive the attention they deserve, with the benefit of them not cluttering the page dedicated to the more diplomatic series.

Don't you think list of lower-level, less widely known transitional lineages would be a valuable resource and a convenient counter to creationist claims that such series don't exist?

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New article: E. coli long-term evolution experiment

I just started an article for Richard Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment, which has been in the news lately since Lenski's lab reported a dramatic mutation of the ability to grow on citrate. Feel free to chip in.--ragesoss (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea

Hi everybody. I've nominated this article as a FA, comments and reviews would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Prokaryotic systematics

Hi all! I was wondering if there is an article related to the above on wikipedia. I tried a few search strings and couldn't find any. If there is one already I don't want to duplicate it and then worry about mergers. Can someone help? Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology

Hi everyone,

A new WikiProject, Palaeontology has been set up, and aims to be the umbrella project uniting Dinos, pterosaurs and monsters from the deep, alongside all the other palaeo article out there that aren't under a strict wikiproject. It was only set up today, so support, opinions and/or criticism is needed. I have come around to this idea, as there are a large number of articles out there in dire need of work, and this would be an excellent way to bring in some collaborative editing. Cheers guys and dolls, Mark t young (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cladistics

Hello;

I see that this page is not heavily active at this time, but I thought I should leave a note. A new user, Consist, is editing Cladistics and other classification articles to include information to the effect that Mats Envall has proved cladistics is wrong. Consist apparently also happens to *be* Envall. While I see all kinds of conflict of interest, undue weight, and fringe science problems with this (not to mention the user's writing style is not the easiest to interpret), I'd like it if some other eyes were observing what is going on. J. Spencer (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Envall is a troll with an unreasoning hatred of cladistics and a religious devotion to Linnean taxonomy. His mode of argument is to make broad assertions with no argument to support them. Apparently all reasonable people can just see that he is right. He has been spamming my own blog for months now because I merely mentioned a paper he had published, and I have several articles that are favourable to cladistic methods and concepts on my site. He is relentless, and will need to be restricted immediately or he will make the entry unusable. John Wilkins (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Consist (talk · contribs) hasn't contributed since July 15. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought

This article is up as a FAC, see discussion here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make it clear that this project adheres to Wikipedia policy

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

The above is certainly the opinion of Science and undoubtedly of most if not all of the participants in this project. But it must be remembered that it is based on the underlying belief of naturalism. Evolution is the best theory around if you believe that everything in this world came about through a natural process whether you believe in God or not. Even it is incomplete as there is no plausible detailed theory for the emergence of life. However there are competing theories that do not believe in the constraints of naturalism that are widely held.

Wikipedia policy is to not take sides in such a case. As such, a project whose stated goal is to promote the naturalistic point of view is in violation of policy. The only allowable activities of a group that fervently believes in naturalism is to ensure that their views are not ignored. As such, I wish to see a clear statement to that effect in the "Scope" of the project, or I will have to conclude that it violates Wikipedia policies. --Ezra Wax (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no other scientific explanations for the changing of species on earth. Any other position that denies this is definitely a fringe view, especially when we are speaking scientifically, therefore since "natuaralism" (actually methodological naturalism ) is implicit in any scientific endeavor we really don't need to mention it explicitly. That would be silly. --Woland (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 256 articles are assigned to this project, of which 91, or 35.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=EvolWikiProject}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy-related articles

WP:CEX' to-do list includes Clade (importance High, target GA). I've had a look at both Clade and Cladistics, and done a little Googling. IMO Cladistics and related articles have reasonable content but significant gaps and are poorly sourced - in short, they neeed a mini-taskforce approach. In fact a taskforce should IMO start with Taxonomy. This article very sensibly looks at a wide range of uses of "taxonomy" - unlike e.g. articles on anatomy, which are far too human-oriented.[1] So an article is needed on biological taxonomy, and there's no link to such an article in Taxonomy at present. I'm thinking of an overall "package" structure like:

• Taxonomy
  • biological taxonomy ?= Systematics
    • Cladistics
      • cladistics sub-topics
    • Linnean system
      • Linnean system sub-topics
    • any other systems of biological taxonomy?

I'm sure this is too much for WP:CEX to take on, as our own to-do list is the foothills of Everest (Cambrian explosion. So I suggest WikiProject Evolutionary biology should form a taskforce to identify all current articles related to biological taxonomy, work out a high-level package structure and then get work on individual articles, starting from the top down.

[1]For example Protostome and Deuterostome can't link to Anus, which dives (!?) almost immediately into sexuality. -- Philcha (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

Evolutionary history of life has been promoted to GA, but has a lot of holes - see Talk:Evolutionary history of life #Structure and questions. I was strongly tempted to put a "needs expert attention" tag on it, but it would be embarassing for Wikipedia to have this banner on a GA. I really hate being so harsh, but one could produce a better article from almost any Paleontology 101 textbook, i.e. a better article with just one source. -- Philcha (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Evolutionary biology

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary perspective needed

Would someone be so kind as to inject some evolutionary views into this debate? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper article supporting evolution

Creationism is not on a par with evolution (from Ireland!) may be citable in articles about the debate over the theory of evolution. The Woodrow Wilson quote in the first para - "... like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution ..." is nice. -- Philcha (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Endangered species article

I came across the Endangered species article today and was surprised that it did not have any WikiProject banners on its talk page. I added the banner to this project. Forgive me if I was incorrect in doing so; I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject of biology. I wanted to let you know so it can be assessed and assigned to any other relevant WPs. Thanks, --momoricks ^talk 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Threatened species article is not assigned to any WPs as well. --momoricks ^talk 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Brain at FAC

A heads up, Brain is at FAC. Would be great to get this one over the line. Needs some work on evolutionary stuff maybe (?). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Convergent evolution

Your opinions would be gratefully received at convergent evolution, which we're hoping to raise to at least B-class. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aquatic adaptation needs much work, or deletion

Aquatic adaptation is pretty horrid. Needs thorough makeover or deletion. Anybody interested? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was horrid. Just needs some work. Too bad some of the people now spending their time on creationism don't help out on this kind of article. (I guess that was WP:Point :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Making it simple?

Hello there; I just wanted to let you know that the Evolution article on Simple English Wikipedia (which basically treats the Darwinian model of Evolution) has been made the equivalent of a Featured Article. I tried to "translate" Abiogenesis (to simple:Abiogenesis), but I am somewhat lost; I am pretty much the only person of the about 30 editors of Simple English Wikipedia to edit science-related articles; furthermore I am a Computer scientist, this means I have practically no background in either biology or chemistry. In other words: I'd really appreciate help from your part. Thanks --Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

molecular clock info in Bird evolution, not cited

Bird evolution contains a discussion on controversies, with the text:

"... two factors must be considered: First, molecular clocks cannot be considered reliable in the absence of robust fossil calibration, whereas the fossil record is naturally incomplete. Second, in reconstructed phylogenetic trees, the time and pattern of lineage separation corresponds to the evolution of the characters (such as DNA sequences, morphological traits etc) studied, not to the actual evolutionary pattern of the lineages; these ideally should not differ by much, but may well do so in practice.

Considering this, it is easy to see that fossil data, compared to molecular data, tends to be more accurate in general, but also to underestimate divergence times: morphological traits, being the product of entire developmental genetics networks, usually only start to diverge some time after a lineage split would become apparent in DNA sequence comparison - especially if the sequences used contain many silent mutations."

These assertions are not cited, and seem to me to require tweaking per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_editorialize.
IMHO, we need to cite this and make the tone less "instructional and presumptuous".
I'm not competent to do this myself. Anybody? Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph says that molecular clocks are inaccurate, without specifying how inaccurate, or where we can find this out. It also vaguely implies that DNA evolution and species evolution may be orthogonal, which I would consider highly dubious in this context.

The second paragraph says ‘therefore X and if you don't believe that you're stupid’ while in reality the second paragraph doesn't follow from the first, and the first paragraph is problematic itself.

I think this whole bit has to go. Ideally to be replaced by something better written, and well-cited, but if that is not possible or necessary, then it just has to be removed. Shinobu (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A family tree for Homo sapiens

I created a graph showing ancestors and cousins of Homo sapiens. The image is far from finished, but I've uploaded a preliminary version to give you an idea:

Image:Stamboom_Homo_sapiens.png (full resolution)

Some notes of caution:

• I deliberately biased it towards human evolution. For example, all plants are covered under a single entry ‘Plantae’ whereas it contains several species of monkeys and apes.
• It also contains lots of other biases. Possibly strongly biased towards extant species, or species of which lots of fossils are known.
• I'm not a biologist, please check the tree for errors.
• I cheated to make ‘Aves’ appear.

If you read the graph starting at ‘Eukaryotes’ at the bottom, to the left and up, down to the center, up to the right and then down again towards ‘H. sapiens’ you'll follow the line of human descent. If it is decided this graph is useful, I could probably create a vector version and use images of representative species as watermarks to liven up the graph and make it more accessible and clear.

Some general remarks:

• The graph was created using semi-manual node placement assisted by the computer.
• I could create more similar graphs, using a tabbed datafile.
• Should I put the main line in bold text? Or not?
• This graph can probably be improved in quite a number of ways.
• The origin of amphibians is still somewhat of a mystery.
• In the case of multiple different family trees, I generally tried to go for modern and uncontroversial ones.
• Family tree information was taken from all over the place (Wikipedia articles, linked sources, Tree of Life web); where I live the information itself is PD. I've released the image/presentation, and will release future versions if any, as CC-BY-SA.

Shinobu (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Developmental systems theory

A very odd article, could do with some expert input. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic equidistance

Up for deletion on grounds of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary Dynamics

I want to contribute a little bit in the field of Evolutionary Dynamics and I wonder whether this is the right kind of place to ask for people with common interest? I set up this page to coordinate efforts and I also wrote the first article about the Moran process. I was wondering whether somebody had interests in the same direction or could give some helpful thoughts on what I wrote - I would appreciate it. Thanks --hroest 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolution in popular culture

I noticed that there is not an article on this. Does anyone think it might be a good idea to have one? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see one. The "in popular culture" things are mostly useless, and I think they are generally discouraged anyway. Ideally any very important mentions of evolution in popular culture can be integrated into an article's main text... but I'm not sure how many pop culture references even warrant inclusion in the evolution article. Aside from that, where would we draw the line for what should be included? Evolution has likely been in thousands of instances of pop culture, from the slightest mention to being the core of the story. That's a broad spectrum. At what point is the mention "important" enough to include? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. It would be a lot of bother. But still there is, for instance, HG Wells The Time Machine which speculated about future human evolution. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD debates on RSOH & speciation categories need informed input

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_2#Category:Recent_speciation_events and the one below Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_2#Category:Recent_single_origin_hypothesis Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GAR of "Natural selection"

As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to have a go, but it would take me a couple of weeks to finish a revision that I'd consider ready for full review, because of the amount of research required - possibly longer, as I may be moving house within that tie. Is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiregional origin of modern humans

Help is needed on improving Multiregional origin of modern humans so that it is expanded, based on reliable sources and is written neutrally. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptospores

I have attempted to de-orphan the article Cryptospores by adding links to it from the pages Spores, Paleobotany, and Evolutionary history of plants. The page Fossils also links to Cryptospores. I would appreciate it if someone would review these edits and work them in a more appropriate manner if necessary. Thanks, --Sophitessa (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution FA review

Thompsma has nominated Introduction to evolution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article may be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" with regard to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -Silence (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

New project userbox created

For all those who are interested, a new project userbox has been created. Instructions are on the template and on the project page itself.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Evolutionary Biology.

Enjoy! –Visionholder (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

peer review at wikiversity

Any one wants to peer review my crack pot theory :D on abiogenesis at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/2.0_Hackolution . Osmotic competition between vesicles, coupled with "reproducing" clay crystals catalyzing molecules for the above mentioned osmotic pressure. Wikiversity has very few users, thank you. And maybe if you whant, to add this in the tasks list?--Deweirdifier (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for input on Bipedalism and Aquatic ape hypothesis

The pages Bipedalism and Aquatic ape hypothesis have both recently come under heavy and persistent dispute due to two users who insist on promoting their version of Aquatic ape hypothesis and expunging as much criticism of the idea as possible. At the moment, it's just me and one other user fending them off, so any help would be greatly appreciated (especially since I'm off to the SICB meeting on Sunday and the other user seems to be gone for Xmas). Mokele (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

John D. Hawks AfD

Would like your help and comments on the article and/or AfD. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Hawks. --JWB (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing evolution topics

I've updated the list of missing biology topics, including the section about evolution - Skysmith (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Phenetics with Linnean taxonomy

It appears that both of these articles deal with the same subject. If so, they need to be merged. Strangely neither Linnean taxonomy or Biological classification link to Phenetics. There is also a pending merge proposal of Phenetics with Numerical taxonomy. There is a need for the article Biological classification to clearly differentiate between the old system (my italics) and the new system i.e. Cladistics. I would welcome any comments. AshLin (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that Phenetics is under WPr:TOL banner, Linnean taxonomy is under WPr:Biology banner and Numerical taxonomy has no talk page. Biological classification has both WPr:TOL and WP:Biology banners as also WPr:Systems and WPr:Viruses.AshLin (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Phenetics and Linnaean taxonomy are different. Linnaean taxonomy (sensu 2) is about the nomenclature of taxa. Phenetics is one technique for inferring a classification of taxa. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What's your view about merging Phenetics and Numerical taxonomy? AshLin (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't merge, the two are about very different subjects. Phenetics is mainly something of the latter half of the 20th century, Linnean taxonomy is of course much older. Ucucha 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I now know from the comments of both editors that Phenetics needs to co-exist with Linnean taxonomy - the two are different. Two points from my side:

• Are Phenetics and Numerical taxonomy identical? If not, how are they different.?
• Could someone clued up please edit Biological classification so that all these terms appear in it and both sensu of Linnean taxonomy, Phenetics, Cladistics and Numerical taxonomy can clearly be understood in the correct context? AshLin (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that numerical taxonomy and phenetics are similar (one of the books that Phenetics cites as important for phenetics is titled "Numerical Taxonomy", for example), but I don't know enough of the subject to be sure that they should be merged. Ucucha 11:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that phenetics is a partial subset of numerical taxonomy (incidentally numerical taxonomy can be used outside the realm of biology). Phenetics looks at "distances" between organisms based on "characters" and it does not have to reflect evolutionary distance and in that sense contrasts phylogenetics. Linnean taxonomy involves the use of ranks (like making a ladder out of a tree). Definitely valid as separate articles, but you can see that there is a lot of confusion over the terms more so when cladistics is thrown into the soup. An eminent editor who could clarify the matter is User:Felsenst who abstains from it as having a POV on it. (See also Talk:Cladistics#Popularity_of_phenetics.3F) Shyamal (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This link and this one too say its the same. Whats the consensus? Merge or keep seperate? I feel that perhaps merging would be more appropriate with material added to say that it is applicable outside the field for which it was designed for. AshLin (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't merge Linnaean taxonomy and Phenetics, they really aren't the same thing. Merging numerical taxonomy and phenetics may possible be a good idea, but I'd rather see short and concise articles on each rather than a long and not very concise article. --Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked whether phenetics and numerical taxonomy are the same. I would say they are closely related and mostly overlapping, but not identical. Phenetic taxonomy groups by overall similarity, rather than by any consideration of evolutionary history. Usually this grouping is done by numerical methods. Numerical taxonomy is formally any taxonomic classification carried out by numerical methods. However in practice it was used as a slogan mostly by pheneticists, and avoided by phylogenetic systematists and by evolutionary systematists. I hope this helps. I am not taking a stand on whether the articles on these two should be combined. Felsenst (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Phenetics is a quantitative method to assess relationships (and its original purpose was to find a phylogenetic tree), while Linnean taxonomy is a rank-based system to arrange taxa (and can in practice be based on any method - qualitative comparison, phenetics, even cladistical analysis). It is as if we'd merge Alphabet with Dewey decimal system - makes no sense.

But I'd support merging Phenetics and Numerical taxonomy. Wouldn't actively advocate it, but as Felsenst explained - it's possible, just like merging Desktop computer and Computer would be possible. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanking all editors for your participation. From what I understand based on the description, the various articles mentioned above are closely related, have a degree of overlap and some common material. However, it is desirable to keep them seperate without merging. Some editing is required to clarify their relationship. I am removing the old merge templates of Phenetics and Numerical taxonomy. I am also bringing them under the relevant WikiProjects. Thank you, all, once again. AshLin (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

NB: It would probably be wise for Wikipedia not to get drawn in the Linnean-vs-PhyloCode/phylogenetic nomenclature debate. We have a working system (the taxobox code is among the best templates on Wikipedia, hands down), and I noted that some branches of biology - notably entomology and botany, but ornithology also - use cladistic analyses but largely eschew phylogenetic nomenclature (at least in the strict sense). So, if e.g. the APG II system or the AOU taxonomy is ditched for a PhyloCode-based or similar system, that would be a clear indication that that's the way to go for the future. But I don't really see this coming in the next years.

Also, from what I do on Wikipedia, I can only say that the biggest problems of any taxonomy are synonymy and homonymy, and with phylogenetic taxonomy offering effectively 3 ways to define practically the same taxon ("practically", since there are outside mammalogy approximately zero cases where the fossil record is already dense enough to recognize nodes/cladogenic events), this seems like the future will reveal a load of contentious taxa. Add to that outspoken personae like Paul Sereno or Jacques Gauthier (to name, arbitrarily, only two who are very public about these things), who do an awful lot of good work but (naturally, as any practicing taxonomist will probably know) find it hard to release "their" taxa into synonymy - and PhyloCode and its relatives stand a good chance to yield less of a "taxonomic revolution" and more of a resurrection of mihi itch. It remains to be seen how phylogenetic nomenclature meets such challenges, which are up to now largely avoided in the peer-reviewed literature but (as subscribers of the Dinosaur Mailing List might have noted) are more frequently debated outside it than a mere 2 years ago.

(Also, the question remains whether a philosophically "clean" phylogenetic nomenclature is actually feasible. It's very popular in vertebrate paleontology, but that field has by necessity a permanent taxonomic undersampling. Since evolution has to be unbroken lineages from ancestors to descendants, any attempt to draw a dividing line is bound to be wrong in some way. In other words, a perfect taxonomy/nomenclature system may be outright impossible.

A thought experiment can illustrate this:

Suppose you find a fossil horse tooth (very characteristic and fossilizes well) from the time and place where Equinae and Anchitheriinae split. Since a split between evolutionary lineages does not happen instantaneously but is a drawn-out process in space and time - more of a population genetics than an evolutionary biology issue - the uncertainty of where and when this split happened can probably never be narrowed down beyond plus/minus a few 10,000 years and plus/minus some 1,000s of km.

If you have "clean" stem-delimited clades, you'll end up with a very "dirty" real-life problem: to what species-level taxon does your fossil specimen belong?

The population wherein the split occurred must, to maintain the clean delimitation of clades, be separated into 3 distinct taxa: one pre-split, and 2 post-split. Yet reproductive isolation would only have been irrevocable until some length of time after their separation (reproductive isolation is an apomorphy), and that would make at least the bases of the two descendent taxa a single species under most species concepts.

Node-delimiting clades does not solve this; it simply shifts the problem around on the phylogenetic tree. And apomorphy-delimited clades are generally eschewed, because they are least useful (though they seem to at first glance, they really aren't). The current version of the PhyloCode, IIRC, "solves" this kind of problem by not dealing with species-level taxa. But this only works when your taxonomic sample is not even close to the actual taxonomic diversity.

Under a Linnean approach, it's the other way around: it works well as regards the practical aspects (it even works under a Creationist paradigm, mind you!), but philosophically it runs risk of being "dirty" to the extreme.

"too long; didn't read" version: The Linneans-vs-PhyloCoders debate (or however you want to call it) is so utterly non-NPOV that we'd be well advised to steer clear of it for the time being.

It helps to be aware of the distinction of cladistics the methodology (running PAUP* and drawing your taxonomic conclusions from the results - which even Storrs Olson, as anti-PhyloCode as can possibly be, does these days) and cladistics the taxonomic philosophy (i.e., the theoretical foundation behind PhyloCode, that which its detractors call "cladism").

And to remember that the crucial difference between the Linnean and PhyloCode is less "ranks vs. no ranks" (since Haeckel, the importance of Linnean ranks has diminished anyway) but "type specimens/type taxa vs. clade definitions" - that essentially, the Linnean system work rootwards from the "leaves" (species/specimens), and the PhyloCode and related systems work from the root to the leaves.

It also helps that the overwhelming majority of taxonomists appear to steer clear of the dispute too, and do their day-to-day work on an expedient basis. Real "traditionalists" (those who use taxa like "Pisces" or "Vermes" and really mean it) are rare these days. I found Michael Engel's work or the APG II system to be good and easily accessible examples of how the current "mainstream" approach looks like.

And finally and bluntly - and forgive my [insert foreign language here] -, it certainly helps to remember that each and every taxonomic system that sorts individual specimens into categories is akin to (and I am not making this up, there really is a German proverb that goes like -) trying to defecate in the corner of a circular room. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)