Talk:Inclusion (taxonomy)

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Improper definition?

I was suggested this article as one that needs sources, but the more digging I do, the more uses I see of the word "inclusion" (and its variants) in taxonomic contexts that do not match the definition referred to in this stub. From what I've found, "inclusion" in taxonomy (in a wide variety of fields, not just biology) refers to a number of things, including:

- how many species are under a certain taxonomic umbrella (ex: noting that Class is more "inclusive" than Genus, but less so than Kingdom)

- the act of defining a general parent-child relationship within taxa (ex: adding the Hallucigenia genus to the phylum Lobopodia after years of research would be an act of "inclusion")

Therefore, not only does the given definition appear over-specific, the instance it refers to is nigh impossible to find sources on. All that being said, taxonomy (biological or otherwise) is an interest of mine, but not a discipline I have any formal training in beyond high school. If someone whose expertise is more in line with this subject could provide clarification, it would be greatly appreciated. MotherOfFlames (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]