Talk:Binomial nomenclature
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Wotheina in topic Too much explanation
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Missing material?
editOne thing that seems to be missing from the article is what happens when a species is moved to another genus in which its specific name/epithet already exists. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
"Excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns"
editI've removed this recent addition to the lead, as it seems too narrow (and recent) a result for the lead: the paper addresses the concern that monotypic genera are an "artifact of human classification", saying that simulated phylogenies produce a similar distribution.
Binomial systematics is shown to be an excellent reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns.[1]
References
- ^ Sigward, J. D.; Sutton, M. D.; Bennett, K. D. (2018). "How big is a genus? Towards a nomothetic systematics". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 183 (2): 237252. doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx059.
I'm not sure if there's a good place for the reference in this article. Opinions? Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Our article is about binomial nomenclature, not about the distribution of the number of species in genera, which is a matter of how taxonomists use binomial nomenclature, not the nomenclature itself. So I don't see that the journal article is relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
T. rex most well known
edit"Tyrannosaurus rex is probably the most widely known binomial.[1]" doesn't seem to be an important enough sentence to include in the first paragraph, and with only a single citation from a generation ago it may no longer even be correct. 199.212.55.162 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, a Google search for the exact phrase "T rex" (Google ignores punctuation) gave me about 66 million hits as opposed to about 32 million for "E coli" which seems to me another well known abbreviated binomial. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- What about Homo sapiens? It results in 72 million hits in a Google search, compared to only 9 million for the fully written Tyrannosaurus rex. Should we change the text here? DKMell (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Definetly should CheeseyHead (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- What about Homo sapiens? It results in 72 million hits in a Google search, compared to only 9 million for the fully written Tyrannosaurus rex. Should we change the text here? DKMell (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Question
editDo the various naming codes adress how these names should be integrated into various languages? For example, I'm curious as to how the capitalization rules work in German. More interestingly, how should these names be written in languages which use non Latin scripts?
Is there an official international standard for "localization" to various languages? Or is officially it left up to local language authorities? Or do the codes not adress this issue officially at all?
If there is such a standard, it would be nice to mention it in the article. If not, it might be useful to add examples of how various languages adress this issue. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Scientific names are treated as literal strings of characters. They are always written in exactly the way prescribed in the nomenclature codes. So if you look in Chinese or Russian botanical sources, for example, you will see the scientific names in the Latin script, although there may also be a transcription and of course a vernacular name. See, as just one example, this extract. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Image bug
editThat is not an image in the beginning, it's just text. Please change it to a proper image. 111.88.15.184 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- It was caused by a bad edit. Now fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hemihomonyms
editThe text in the "Problems" section says "At least 1241 instances of such binomial duplication occur", but the paper by Shipunov cited in support of this apparently shows only genus-level name duplication, not duplication of both genus and species names. Other sources, although less authoritative, have only a handful (< 10) of known cases. I think there's a mistake here, but maybe I'm missing something. DKMell (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DKMell: you are quite right; well spotted! I've changed the text to
- "Because genus names are unique only within a nomenclature code, it is possible for two or more species to share the same genus name and even the same binomial if they occur in different kingdoms. At least 1240 instances of genus name duplication occur."
- I think this is more accurate (and avoids some false precision). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Too much explanation
editIn the end of the opening there's a part that reads ""binomi'N'al" with an "N" before the "al", which is not a typographic error, meaning "two-name naming system"." I feel it's explaining it too much. It's clunky and hard to read. Can we get rid of it altogether? CheeseyHead (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clunky it is (I wrote that version), but for a reason. There is long history of the word "binominal" repeatedly getting removed from the lede. Allow me a few more days to research and elaborate. --Wotheina (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- As a reader, I learned from this article that both "binomial" and "binominal" are legitimate terms. I appreciate that, and believe this information is worth kept on the lede. It is notable for being used by ICZN and other literature.[1] The problem is that "binominal" has often been removed:
Timeline of edits pertaining "binominal"
|
|---|
|
- Since 2011, as far as I could find, "binominal" was removed 7 times (excluding apparent graffiti). The "n" is particularly hard to recognize, requiring particular emphasis. Most of the time it was emphasized with an underscore. But this underscore too is a frequent target of removal (at least 9 times since 2007), on the grounds that "the underscored 'n' is not standard English and will mystify readers". A typical pattern goes
- Someone adds (re-adds) "binominal" with an underscore.
- A copy editor removes the underscore.
- A novice mistakes it as redundant and zaps it.
- To me, as a reader, the underscored version was helpful and worked well. I understood that it is a plain emphasis and did not mistake it as an "n" with a macron below or a hyperlink. Anyway, even the underscore is insufficient to deter removals. Of the 7 cases,
- 3 cases were when the word was without the underscore (Case 2,6,7).
- 4 cases were when the word had the underscore (Case 1,3,4,5). One soon self reverted (Case 1).
- I suspect there are people who do not see that there are people who do not see the "n". This makes things even more difficult. All other ideas to date also failed, so the current version became clunky like designed by committee. Now the conditions we need to meet are:
- Inform that "binominal" is also a legitimate term.
- Prevent it mistakenly labeled or removed as "wrong spelling".
- Prevent it mistakenly removed as "duplicates".
- Robust against people who don't read citations, templates, and embedded comments.
- Comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting.
- Avoid WP:SELFREF such as "note ...", "see ..."
- Not too clunky
- --Wotheina (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ example: p429 of Cantino, Philip D. (1998). "Binomials, Hyphenated Uninomials, and Phylogenetic Nomenclature". Taxon (journal). 47 (2). Wiley: 425–429. doi:10.2307/1223773. JSTOR 1223773.. Paywalled, but accessible via Wikipedia Library [1] (very slow).