Talk:10th edition of Systema Naturae
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 10th edition of Systema Naturae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307132150/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=638877 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=638877
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Excessive detail in the sub-articles on each kingdom?
editThe articles
- Mammalia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
- Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
- Amphibia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
- Pisces in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
- Insecta in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, and
- Vermes in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae
all include extensive lists of binomial names, wikilinked to the corresponding species. I can't read Latin, but I took a look at the BHL link, and it seems to me that these lists effectively copy/translate the book, in a manner that seems more appropriate at (say) WikiSource.
I do think there's probably enough secondary literature to maintain pages for each kingdom, and we should probably mention some of the ways in which Linné's initial taxonomy differs from the modern in each kingdom. But does it make sense to mention in this encyclopedia each and every species Linné listed? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the lists are not appropriate in the sub-articles. There's a case for a separate list article with subsections, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)