Talk:Zoology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Branches of zoology

The branches of zoology presented seem a little colloquial and old fashioned; are these branches really relevant terms? They may discourage people from navigating further into specialised areas. I would encourage you to start with broad current fields like physiology and ecology and branch from there. [J.O'Connor nov 6 2003]

Agree totally. I've rewritten and updated the section. Moved the old fashioned branches from article, keep here, just in case we want a "history of zoological branches section" (although I don't recommend one). --Lexor 10:48, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)you need to know about zoology if you want to have that job!

The following five branches of zoological study are recognized:

1. Morphography. The work of the collector and systematist: exemplified by Linnaeus and his predecessors, Cuvier, Agassiz, Haeckel.
2. Bionomics. The lore of the farmer, gardener, sportsman, fancier and field-naturalist, including thremmatology, the science of breeding, and the allied teleology, or science of organic adaptations: exemplified by the patriarch Jacob, the poet Virgil, Sprengel, Kirby and Spence, Wallace and Darwin.
3. Zoo-Dynamics, Zoo-Physics, Zoo-Chemistry. The pursuit of the learned physician, zootomy and physiology: exemplified by Harvey, Haller, Hunter, Johann Muller.
4. Plasmology. The study of the ultimate corpuscles of living matter, their structure, development and properties, by the aid of the microscope; exemplified by Malpighi, Hooke, Schwann, Kowalewsky.
5. Philosophical Zoology. General conceptions with regard to the relations of living things (especially animals) to the universe, to man, and to the Creator, their origin and significance: exemplified in the writings of the philosophers of classical antiquity, and of Linnaeus, Goethe, Lamarck, Cuvier, Lyell, Spencer and Darwin.

It is unnecessary in this article to follow all these subjects, since they are for the most part treated under separate headings, and are too broad in themselves. Thus Bionomics is treated in such articles as evolution, heredity, variation, Mendelism, reproduction, sex, etc.; Zoo-dynamics under medicine, surgery, physiology, anatomy, embryology, and allied articles; Plasmology under cytology, protoplasm, etc.; and Philosophical Zoology under numerous headings, evolution, bioloigy, etc.

It will be more appropriate here, without giving what would be a needless repetition of considerations, both historical and theoretical, which appear in other articles, to confine ourselves to two general questions, (1) the history of the various schemes of classification, or Morphography, and (2) the consideration of the main tendencies iu the study of zoology since Darwin.

Human

Please come help out on Human. Were facing a number of questions regarding a past poll and its results, the positioning of the taxobox and an image, the definition of "Human", if Homo Sapiens should split off into its own article, and even if the "article in need of attention" header is appropriate. I'd like as much expert involvement as possible, if you please. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Decumanus#Hey. Cheers,to the party of all parties. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Medical Doctors

Are Medical Doctors (including Dentists, Veterinarians, and Physicians) considered Zoologists? --Admiral Roo 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Animal anatomy

I have been advocating that we massively boost the amount of information Wikipedia provides on animal anatomy. It could be both interesting and informative, but right now it not anything at all; as it just doesn't exist on the site. I propose the following pages to be created:

• animal anatomy or zootomy - the parent page (perhaps with this article merged into it)
  • vertebrate anatomy
    • mammal anatomy (perhaps also marsupial anatomy and monotreme anatomy and even cetacea anatomy)
    • bird anatomy - there is already a bird skeleton article, and more than enough info can be taken from the bird article
    • reptile anatomy (as of 08/05/06 redirects to reptile)
    • amphibian anatomy
    • bony fish anatomy
      • cartilaginous fish anatomy
  • invertebrate anatomy
    • crustacean anatomy
    • insect anatomy etc...

The list could go on forever, I'm not sure whether ALL the possible articles deserve to exist, but most certainly the mammal/bird/reptile/amphibian/fish ones do, as that is what we all grown up with as the five main animal groups from early school. These article currently exist to deal with this field:

• cat anatomy - poor
• dog anatomy - good, but isn't really anatomy, more their physical appearance
• frog zoology - good
• [category:horse anatomy] - a whole category, with articles such as equine forelimb anatomy
• [catagory:marsupial zootomy]
• [catagory:dog anatomy]
• bird skeleton - good

I have to admit I am no expert, I propose this in the hope that someone who is can help. What does everyone think? mastodon 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you want it to happen, your best chance at making it happen is to make a start at it yourself. Wikipedia:Be bold. Start with whichever one you know the most about... try to write a good stub... and hope for the best. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bird anatomy seems the easiest, there is more than enough content in the bird article and bird skeleton article, so I have added a split tag, and am waiting a verdict. What is the normal process in this situation? mastodon 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can any one clear my doubt...Why the bulls become aggressive on seeing red color? Temuzion 10:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they know that in a few minutes some asshole will try and stab him with a dozen short spears.

-G

Edit without title

I'm just about to start doing something with the zoology page. Just messing about. Please feel free to ignore what I'm doing. I can lways revert the page back to its previous state if this doesn't lead anywhere. :) -- Oliver P. 07:51 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Stupid Vandal!

Who keeps inserting the word "poop" into random spots in random articles? It's really getting on my nerves. I'm going to revert this if nobody objects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.87.79 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, no objection here, anti-vandalism is a part of Wikipedia, right? You go ahead and get rid of them. Ahahaha, it's me, Rahk_EX 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

this article

is just a whole bunch of poop random code...or is it supposed to be like that. Vikram, 5:06 (no idea what time zone) , September 11, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.157.55 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The lead in this article appears to have been a copyright violation (original source: [1]). You can compare the abstract of that Britannica article to this dif [2]. If anyone has full access to Britannica online, please note whether the lead or more of the article is a copy of the Britannica article. Justin ^chat 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 entry being referenced above originally stems from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and as such I believe that the relevant content is Public Domain. I will pursue this line of reasoning on the Britannica discussion for a definitive answer in regards to copyright status. If removal of such content has significantly detracted from the article I'm of the opinion that restoration of the EB based contributions with reference tags may be appropriate. 99.229.239.0 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the 'Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica' category is listed in the links below as well as the template in the header of this discussion which indeed verifies my initial assumption as well as suggests presentational templates. If it is insisted that such information be removed from the article for some reason other than a mistaken copyvio these templates and categories should be addressed as well. 99.229.239.0 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the 2007 edition of Britannica Online: ... "branch of biology that studies the members of the animal kingdom and animal life in general. It includes both the inquiry into individual animals and their constituent parts, even to the molecular level, and the inquiry into animal populations, entire faunas, and the relationships of animals to each other, to plants, and to the nonliving environment."

Relevant quote from the 1911 edition: ... "portion of biology which relates to animals, as distinguished from that portion (Botany) which is concerned with plants."

It's also notable that the quote from the 1911 edition is the entire lead, whereas the modern editions use far lengthier leads. The Wikipedia entry was an exact copy of the 2007 Britannica Online which, at best, has minor resemblances to the 1911 edition. Derivative works of Public Domain words does not automatically make them Public Domain as well. Justin ^chat 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, TeaDrinker also brought these differences to my attention. These observations do present reasonable doubt for the removal of such content. Arguably, one could pursue further verification of whether it meets the "fair use" policy which is granted to some content in the modern editions, but you have significantly clarified your point. I still believe page blanking is a bit overly aggressive of a solution, although I may just be unfamiliar with wikipedia's potential copyright violation resolution policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.239.0 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I feel we should either remove the pronunciation /zuˈɑləʤɪ/ or at least make it clear that it is incorrect (similar to the common "nucular" for "nuclear"). Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I, a while ago, changed "incorrect" to "nonstandard." I'm assuming you're not a linguist, but if you are, you should know that there is no such thing as an "incorrect" pronunciation. There is standard and nonstandard. It is arbitrary. Much love from a phonetician. 97.81.69.177 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am curious whether you think your view that there is no such thing as an incorrect pronunciation is a correct one or not? If so, you contradict yourself. If not, you are merely expounding the standard, but certainly not correct, relativism. It is hypocrisy. Some advice from a philosopher. μηδείς (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We had:

"British English: /zuːɑlədʒɪ/ and American English: /zoʊˈɒlədʒi/"

Which is surely mixed up - why /ɑ/ for British English and /ɒ/ for American? I've changed it to /zuːˈɒlədʒi/ and /zoʊˈɒlədʒi/, and removed the US/UK tags. Lfh (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No evidence in the reference previously given that the pronunciation /zuˈɑləʤɪ/ is incorrect, hence removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.232.147 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

While documentation of pronunciation appears to be a descriptive process rather than a prescriptive one, only one of the pronunciations follows the spelling (in a manner similar to the pronunciations of "nuclear.") If the double letter O is regarded as a digraph, then no vowel remains to represent the subsequent short O sound. If the first vowel is given a long sound, then the word contains no diagraph, and the second O is pronounced in a manner similar to other words ending in "-ology." So the spelling seems to indicated the word should either be "zo-ology" or "zoo-logy" but not "zoo-ology." Both Robert Hartwell Fiske in his Dictionary of Unendurable English and The Columbia Guide to American English regard the /zuːˈɒlədʒi/ pronunciation as nonstandard. I did not make the change, preferring to allow for continued discussion first, but I would agree with the "nonstandard" label for that pronunciation.

What does this sentence mean?

Gradually, since the time of Hunter and Cuvier, anatomical study has associated itself wre superficial morphography until today no one considers a study of animal form of any value which does not include internal structure, histology and embryology in its scope and limitation. I am not sure what word or words was meant by 'wre', if anyone has any idea what belongs here please fix it. Khajidha (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With. Intelligentsium 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New Image

I have recently created the following collage of various animals which much better represents animal diversity (18 classes in 13 phyla) than the current image (nine classes, seven of them vertebrate, in three phyla). If there are no good reasons not too, I will substitute the image shortly. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Probable vandalism

Removed the sentence "Nada Halwani from lebanon wrote this article!" from the lead. Thanks 125.237.26.48 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it seems this article is a popular target for vandals. A protection wouldn't go amiss here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.26.48 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

salam

Gedvthcchrccch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.61.118.5 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Developmental Biology

Developmental Biology offers authors the option to sponsor non-subscriber access to their articles on Elsevier 's electronic publishing platforms. For more information please view our Sponsored Articles page.

Developmental Biology publishes original research on mechanisms of development, differentiation, and growth in animals and plants at the molecular, cellular, and genetic levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathi.rohit008 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

biogeography

i added some background context under the biogeography section, and will be making a few more edits across the page if anything comes up. feel free to ask any questions you have. thanks. GoGatorMeds (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

B-Class criteria checklist

The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:

References

Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?

Scope

Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?

Layout and organization

Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?

Well written

Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?

Supporting materials

Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?

Understandable

Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.

Input anyone?

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning the spelling with diaresis?

If I'm not mistaken, the word is sometimes spelled zoölogy at least in older texts, which does better reflect the pronunciation. Work this in somehow? Probably not in the lead sentence, which is already a bit cluttered. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History sub-pages

History of zoology (through 1859) and History of zoology since 1859 both exist. The names are inconsistently formatted. Should one of the pages be renamed? Should the pages be merged into a single History of zoology article? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

Why is it "Zoology" here, but "Zoölogy" in the dictionary? 96.31.10.178 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

We aren't responsible for whichever dictionary you may have seen. However, "Zoology" is the overwhelmingly dominant spelling that everybody uses; I've never seen the diaeresis (the two dots) used other than to indicate the intended pronunciation or division into syllables, zo-ology, so basically I think the right answer is to say, it's not really a spelling now, if ever it was. Our job is just to follow what reliable sources, here in zoology not in dictionaries, actually do, and there's no doubt about the normal spelling in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Zoology

Classification 2409:4062:2100:217A:0:0:24C:30B1 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"History of zoology (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect History of zoology (disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#History of zoology (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)