|
This tree doesn't have much to do with cladistics. The splits aren't binary and no explanation is given for their arrangement. It's really more a phylogenetic tree. I also think this might be a bad idea in general because nobody really knows how the lower groups are arranged, and most of the higher ones will be discussed in a different article. What do we plan to put here that won't be contained in Monera, Archaea, Eukaryota, Protista, Plantae, Fungi, or Animalia, with more room for details and explanations? Not meaning to be negative... --Josh Grosse I agree it is not a formal cladistics diagram because no explanation is given for the arrangements. The non-binary splits were meant to represent currently unknown sequences of binary splits. I also agree that there is a lot of uncertainty that will necessitate future correction. However as a lay person I found such trees a compelling view of taxonomy and I think it gives a different perspective that is not widely known. I am not suggesting that this tree be the main entry point into the wikipedia taxonomy, just an alternate view. --Eob Ok, now subpages I definitely disagree with. If we have enough information on animals to warrant a separate page, why doesn't that info just go on Animalia? There is already a nice summary chart there, with basically the same structure and content as what one would expect here. --JG My concept was that these new "tree pages'", such as Tree of life/Animalia, would be parallel and complementary to the current "prose pages", such as Animalia. They would be different to the prose pages in the following ways: # They give a summary index into the prose pages. # They do not contain any text other than a few words on each tree node. # They allow for easier and quicker navigation through the tree of life. # They emphasise the latest thinking in taxonomy and phylogeny which is quite different to the classical Linnaean taxonomy that many people would have learned in school. --Eob Hmm, the quicker and easier I can see. I'll cooperate now. :) As for Linnaean taxonomy, though, it's been undergoing quite a few revisions, and it isn't nearly as far apart from cladistics as most people seem to think. The table on Animalia is, after all, pretty similar to the tree on /Animalia. --JG When I came to this page I expected to see an article about the Tree of Life from the Genesis story(I think there are corallaries in Norse and American Indian mythologies too). I think maybe this article ought to be renamed because I suspect that most people would make the same mistake. --MemoryHole.com Perhaps just a note at the top of the page with links to other meanings of Tree of Life would be sufficient. --Eob As it stands right now, article titles are usually reserved for the most common meaning of the term. I think the Tree of Life from Genesis would be the one here. I do think that this page is a great idea, but if it needs to be moved, it's probably better to do it sooner than later. Moving large numbers of subpages is not fun. :) -- STG Hmmm. This is very culture and individual specific. I myself never even thought of the biblical tree of life. In an attempt to come up with an objective test I did a Google search for "tree of life". Google does a pretty good job of estimating the commonest meaning of a term. Its results (on Sept 22, 2001 -- searching for pages in English only) starting with best match gave pages in the following categories: # biology (taxonomy) # biology (taxonomy) # health food # biology (flies) # religion (kabbalah) # religion (kabbalah) # biology (photos) # home page # home schooling # adoption So the results are mixed, though they do seem to confirm that the biological use of "tree of life" is reasonably common. I myself would be inclined to keep this page with its current name, but I would have no problem with a move to some other suitable name. But what would be such a name? I do not like "phylogenetic tree" because it it too technical -- I would prefer some more generally accessible name. -- Eob I think the main reason that biology is so prominent is because there is a site called the tree of life, which is linked to all over the place. Why not "evolutionary tree"? Obvious name and it's not like there'd be much else to discuss on that page. "Tree of life" does indeed seem to be common in the biological sense. My argument for moving it would be that the tree could have a different name (such as "evolutionary tree" suggested above; what do you think of that one?) and still be accurate. However, it would be difficult to rename an article on the religious/mythical tree of life. -- STG I like the name "evolutionary tree". It is clear and less ambiguous than "tree of life". Good suggestion! Unless someone objects or has a better suggestion for a name I propose we make the change. --Eob |
|
Describe the new page here. |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)