User:Liné1/Wikispecies first mistake: Classification is never precised
The scientific problem: there are many classifications
[edit]Each taxon has a long history: it is first introduced by its authors. But later it is used differently by other biologists. Thoses other biologists changes its parents or/and its children. When those changes are recognized by the scientific community, they are called classifications.
There are multiple classical classifications, but now there are also multiple versions of phylogenetical classifications (APG, then APG II, then APG modified by APGWebSite for APG III proposal)
For each group of species, there are many classifications:
- fr:Classification_classique shows a small list of some classical classifications
- en:List of systems of plant taxonomy shows a larger list of plants classifications
- cannabaceae shows how different the parents of the same taxon cannabaceae can be in different classifications.
- en:Maple is a well know example: Acer was classified by many classifical classifications in the family Aceraceae but is now classified by en:APG II in Sapindaceae (The french page fr:Érable shows both classifications in their taxobox).
The wikispecies problem: the classification is never precised
[edit]Wikispecies presents only one classification, but never precises which one. This is a big mistake.
When you give a classification, you must always precise which one is a universal rule for taxonomy!
Another reason to specify the classification followed in each page is that wikispecies will change of classification as a new one appears every 2-5 years. So during the migration there will be pages in both classifications. And that won't be a problem as the classification will be displayed
Samples:
- wikispecies will now follow the web site MSW version 3 for mammals taxonomy. It is important to specify it in all the migrated mammal taxon, in case the migration is not totally complete (some article could follow one classif, other follow MSW v2 and new article following MSW v3).
How other web sites resolve this problem
[edit]Every big classification site (like ITIS) precise wich classification it follows in a specific page. But as wikispecies as so many different contributor, I think the classification followed should be specified in each article.
With this link, you will see that wikicommons now precise the followed classification within the template commons:Template:taxonavigation.
The contributor problem: the classification is never precised
[edit]I really would like to verify and improve the wikispecies articles I read. But as I don't know the classification followed, I can't correct them.
Samples:
- Liliopsida is a pure shame for wikispecies. I know much about plant classification, but I have never see such a content for Liliopsida. It does not follow Cronquist classification, nor APG II classification. Perhaps this page is correct in a specific classification, but as we don't know which classification...