Animalia Paradoxa is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
The first sentence describes Animalia Paradoxa as a "cryptic wastebasket taxon", which in my view is very misleading. Under the header Paradoxa Linnaeus lists "animals" that he knew or believed were mythical or forgeries and give the reasons for why he did not include them in his system. For instance he knew that the hydra and dragon were forgeries and he did not believe the story about the pelican, and he tells the reader why, but they were not put in the class Paradoxa! He described six classes: I. Quadrupedia, II. Aves, III Amphibia, IV. Pisces, V. Insecta and VI. Vermes. He doesn't list a VII. Paradoxa - i.e. Paradoxa is not a taxon.
(But L had a wastebasket taxon in his system: Vermes.)
Episcophagus (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not "cryptic" ("Mystified or of an obscure nature.") BTW, it reads "cryptid" (FTA: "a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is unrecognized by scientific consensus and often regarded as highly unlikely. Famous examples include the Yeti in the Himalayas and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland.") So, ok, for now how about just 'cryptid group'? If you have an alternate suggestion, please feel free to change it! :) -- Limulus (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes cryptid, not cryptic, thanks (I'm well aware of cryptids but a sloppy writer...). I would rather have it to read something like "Under the header Paradoxa Linnaeus listed creatures that he considered as myths or frauds, and gave the reasons why he thought so". Any references to taxons or groups implies that they were included in Systema Naturae, which they obviously were not.