Template talk:Taxonomy/Aves

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Parent

This template parents to Avialae/skip for two reasons. First, without it the chain of taxonomy templates from a typical bird species all the way up to Life is too long. The second is to avoid showing certain unwanted primary ranks on bird articles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clades between tetrapod and eumaniraptora?

How about dinosaurs? Archosaurs? Sauropsids? Bird taxonomy is weird and we should help people figure it out. Leadwind (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are there when clicking through the taxobox, which is why Eumaniraptora/skip is used (clicking the link in Bird will take you to see the rest of the taxonomy). For some reason using this without the skip generates a too many taxa error in avian species taxoboxes and breaks them, so we need to place the sip one or two nodes above Avialae. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

Birds are more of a clade than a class, i just want to make sauropsida monophyletic. Dinnodal (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What change, exactly, do you want to make here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Class vs. Clade

User:ELP-PhD is attempting to have this taxon be a clade instead of a class. No coherent rationale is provided other than that Aves is not a valid taxonomic class, which doesn't really make sense to me, since journal articles about birds still refer to it as a class, but what do I know. There is further commentary about birds being a clade within Reptilia, which seems totally orthogonal to whether we call that clade a "Class" or not.

Methinks someone is a bit hazy on how modern evolutionary phylogenetics assigns taxonomic names and ranks. Rather than go through this all, again, here is my reply to someone else who appears to take umbrage at my edits:
You have something of a point-- many, but not all, modern systematists have discontinued the use of taxonomic ranks (Class, Order, et cetera). This is known as "rank-free systematics". However, the traditional taxonomic ranks (e.g., Class) and the term "clade" can, and are, simultaneously used. To be a valid, a taxonomic group (whether given a traditional rank or not) must be a clade (i.e., a monophyletic group). So, the Mammalia (the sister-group to the Reptilia) is BOTH a Class and a clade.
However, there are several problems with using ranks. First, there are many more valid groups than there are ranks. This has been a problem ever since Linnaean Taxonomy was formalized, but has become more and more of a problem as modern phylogenetic techniques have allowed us to tease out the relationships within many (most?) of the old taxonomic ranks. When we didn't have any well-accepted hypotheses about the relationships within the Reptilia there wasn't a need for the number of names we can now apply to this group. But, with the greater number of fossils collected over time, the advent of cladistics, and the development of genetic techniques, we now have many more nodes (i.e., clades) than ranks. Second, as we have applied the techniques and rules of Evolutionary Phylogenetics (essentially the Cladistic framework), many of the older taxa have become invalid. This is often because they result in their parent groups becoming paraphyletic, as is the case in the Class Reptilia and the Class Aves. Aves is a proper clade (i.e., a monophyletic group), but Reptilia is not if Aves are excluded from Reptilia. For Reptilia to be a valid clade it MUST include Aves, otherwise it is paraphyletic. Some bristle at the idea of "demoting" Aves (or any other cherished group), but Reptilia and Aves cannot both be valid taxonomic Classes. We might consider keeping Aves as a Class and elevating Reptilia to something higher (e.g., Superclass, Subphylum, et cetera), but that presents a suite of other problems. Third, many folk can't quite divorce themselves from the notion that highly derived groups shouldn't be given some sort of status based on their evolutionary "grade" (as opposed to their clade). It is obvious that birds are quite different from other reptiles, but they are still within the Clade Reptilia. Likewise, humans are still within the clade that contains the other "Great Apes" (Pongo, Gorilla, and Pan). In that case the old taxon Pongidae was found to be paraphyletic if it didn't include the Hominidae. The resolution was to include Pongo, Gorilla, and Pan within the Hominidae. This was done because of taxonomic precedence, the rules of which don't apply to the Reptilian-Aves case.
So, what are we left with in this case? Birds are obviously a clade of very derived reptiles. Any well accepted phylogeny of reptiles proposed in the last several decades (since at least the 1980s) places the origin of birds well within the dinosaurs. In light of this, keeping Aves as a Class makes little sense; to do so would involve rewriting huge chunks of vertebrate taxonomy. However, recognizing that Aves is a clade within the Class Reptilia (without worrying about the rank of Aves) solves the problem. Using both the traditional Linnaean ranks, and recognizing clades within those ranks, is done by a number of modern researchers. It might be a bit easier (or at least "cleaner") in some respects to just ditch ranks altogether (i.e., use a rank-free taxonomy), but many evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, et cetera, still use ranks to some extent. As such we are left with something of a "hybrid" system of taxonomy, with ranks used for many well accepted clades (e.g., Class Mammalia, Class Reptilia, Phylum Mollusca, et cetera) and "Clade" used to designate monophyletic groups for which traditional ranks just don't suffice (usually because we just don't have enough ranks for all the recognized clades; e.g., Aves).ELP-PhD (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELP-PhD (talk • contribs)
"Methinks someone is a bit hazy..." – maybe, but I was already well aware of everything you wrote here regarding clades, Reptilia, etc. You don't seem to have understood my point, so allow me to rephrase: As I noted to you, many current journal articles still refer to Aves as a class. (random example) I realize you think that is wrong or that it "pains" you, but it does seem to be in use regularly, in high quality sources. Your repeated use of rhetoric like "have not been considered a valid taxonomic Class for decades" does in fact appear to be out in the weeds, sorry. Additionally, please understand that Wikipedia follows sources – we do not try to redefine the way things are done because our way is better. Any arguments you make for these changes should keep that in mind: try to demonstrate that high quality sources don't use the word "class" anymore, rather than just explaining why you personally think using the word class is wrong. (And see below; we should probably take this to talk:Bird.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a strong opinion here, although the change being made is a problem as it takes "Aves" out of bird taxoboxes, which I assume is not intended. So we will likely not be making this exact change, as a practical matter.

Are we interested in accuracy or not? The easy solution (and a "practical" one to boot) is just to recognize birds as "the Clade Aves, a clade within the Class Reptilia".ELP-PhD (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're not hearing me. I'm just pointing out that the change you made seemed to take Aves out of Bald eagle's taxobox, yet you want Aves in Bald eagle's taxobox as you say below: just noting that we might need to make a slightly different change to have the desired effect. Don't worry about it; let's move on. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss what we want Bird's taxobox and species taxoboxes, e.g. Bald eagle's, to look like. Should they contain Aves? Should it be class or clade or what?

Once we decide we can then figure out the technical details. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would change it to:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Clade: Amniota
Class: Reptilia
Clade: Diapsida
Clade: Dinosauria
Clade: Aves
Order: Accipitriformes
Family: Accipitridae
Genus: Haliaeetus
species: H. leucocephalus

ELP-PhD (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aves (i.e., Birds) have not been considered a valid taxonomic Class for decades. While the appropriate taxonomic rank of Aves is still open to some dispute, it is almost certainly well below that of Class. Aves is a clade (of whatever rank) within the Class Reptilia. Many folks may not like the idea of birds being reptiles, but that is what they are --- very highly derived reptiles. ELP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELP-PhD (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; that is a radical change, and a very long taxobox. I am pretty confident that there are many who would like to give input here, and the amount of work to make this change consistently might be large. Please start a discussion at talk:Bird to get some more input so we can generate a consensus (there's already someone there who is disputing your changes). thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are still not comfortable and satisfied with the idea that birds are a dinosauria clade, and are a group of theropods. But in other instances, they would contently call them "feathered dinosaurs" and categorize them under theropoda. This inconsistency and contradiction is very bizarre. Birds are either dinosaurs, or they are not. Pick a side already. ~ Meganesia (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Class: Reptilia" from all bird infoboxes

This template has been edited to remove the "Class: Reptilia" from all bird infoboxes. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Reptiliae or Aves? to help resolve the confusing issues.  Paine  u/c 21:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A clade

What's happened to the clade Sauropsida?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Inconsistent taxonomies. If it's better to skip from Avialae to Sauropsida, then it's fine by me. All that matters is bypassing Reptilia. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about taxonomy, Peter, and while you say you don't know enough about these taxonomies to know whether your present solution is the best possible, I'm just thankful that you're around to make all this better than it was before and as consistent with reliable sources as is possible. If Sauropsida can be included without embroiling Wikipedia in the present cladistics debate, then we might want to find a way to do so. However, if including Sauropsida means that we must also place birds in class Reptilia, then let's leave it out. It surprises me that there was no response to your opening at the WikiProject, but since it's the holidays, we should be patient and await the return of other experts.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request

Consensus has been reached that the Ornithurae skip template is clearly an incorrect use of a taxobox and serves no meaningful purpose. More context on the WP:TOL talk page. However, as you can see this makes the taxobox on the bird page glitch out, which could be fixed by changing this template to use the unskipped template as a parent. However this template is protected so I cannot make the change. Can someone unprotect it and do so? Olmagon (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Use the unskipped ornithurae (Template:Taxonomy/Ornithurae) template as a parent.

Consensus has been reached that the Ornithurae skip template (Template:Taxonomy/Ornithurae/skip) is clearly an incorrect use of a taxobox and serves no meaningful purpose. More context on the WP:TOL talk page. Once this is done, the skip template can be deleted without influencing other taxoboxes such as this one. Olmagon (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2023

@Olmagon: can you make a copy of this template with the change you want at Template:Taxonomy/Aves/sandbox? Elli (talk | contribs) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just done, that's what i mean (huh, this is my thousandth edit). Olmagon (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A similar edit is needed on Template:Taxonomy/Neognathae as I mention in Template talk :Taxonomy/Neognathae, could you handle that as well? Thanks in advance. @MSGJ Olmagon (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @MSGJ for your help in fulfilling the previous edit request. May I ask to have Aves retained as visible in the taxonomy template by setting the "always display" parameter to "true", as currently done in Template:Taxonomy/Aves/sandbox? I believe this will aid people in getting to the main bird article easier, while still making their evolutionary history clear. Olmagon (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC
There is an ongoing discussion on this issue (not for the first time) at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 59#Dinosaurian clades outside bird taxoboxes. There is little support for a long list of dinosaur taxa in bird articles and the support there is seems suspicious. There is a general consensus that taxa currently displayed can be improved but no consensus for any particular change. I've made a specific proposal (Can we try and achieve a consensus?) to try and gain consensus. I've reverted the changes until such consenus is gained. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Taxonomy/Aves"