Talk:Incertae sedis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The present form looks like overkill. I don't see that the "example" illustrates anything. This entry looks like it would benefit by cleaning? Brya 09:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree if you chose to reduce the example a bit or change it, but the explanations as to why a taxon might be labelled as incertae sedis are vital to the article. What's left without them is just a dictionary definition and not encyclopedic concerning a topic that definitely has potential to be encyclopedic. --Aranae 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this as close to being complete nonsense as I have ever seen. Firstly, the so-called "example" features humans. Anything involving the taxonomy of humans has far too much baggage to be suitable for anything other than stirring up controversy and making taxonomy look bad. Secondly, the example goes to great length to present a taxonomy and then blithely proceeds "if this were not the case, and we were to write an SF scenario we could think up an imaginary case of incertae sedis". So even by its own admission it is the opposite of an example.
If you want a real example why not provide one? Brya 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly doesn't help that it says "if modern humans were newly discovered". It would seem to be greatly preferable to use a real example than to use such nonsense as a fictional example in a confusing way.68.94.91.172 (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllum?![edit]

The lead refers to undefined phyllum but all examples - to undefined lesser taxa. No matter how vague Homo is, would anyone doubt attribution to Phyllum Chordata? NVO (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you correct it? Also, "phylum" only has one L. Booger-mike (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The example of Homo being placed incertae sedis in Hominidae is a bad example. It includes a subfamily Homininae, containing gorillas and chimpanzees, but the subfamily Homininae is based on the genus Homo. Without that genus included, it would have to be called Paninae or Gorillinae (I think Paninae has priority, but I am not sure). Perhaps it would be better to take a less anthropocentric view of the world, and give the example of chimpanzees being placed incertae sedis in the family, beside Homininae and Ponginae; this should probably be followed through into the next example as well. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be even better to give a real-world example and not a contrived one involving hominids? Ucucha 06:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Do you know of an example? Should we ask at WT:TOL? I think the original author's intention was probably to use the same taxa in examples at different ranks, rather than bamboozling the reader with dozens of new taxa, but I agree that genuine examples where taxa have been placed incertae sedis (even if they have since been placed elsewhere) would be preferable. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One example I can think of is Gondwanatheria, which was ranked as a suborder of Multituberculata in 1996 and reclassified as Mammalia incertae sedis in 1999 (and still ranked as a suborder). Ucucha 10:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incertae sedis. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incertae sedis. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Foogenus" barspecies[edit]

I see pages like "Crocodylus" affinis where the genus is in quotes. This isn't explained in the articles in question. It seems similar but not identical to what is described in Incertae sedis#In zoological nomenclature. If it were explained properly in Incertae sedis#In zoological nomenclature then one could add a footnote in "Crocodylus" affinis et al linking to the explanation. jnestorius(talk) 20:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching pagenames beginning with " gives these:
jnestorius(talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incertae_sedis&oldid=1194741297"