1524:
been adopted for so long is that over the last half century or so it was promoted by the IUBS which all users and end users of taxonomy tend to follow. The IUBS will not recognise PhyloCode at present. Further to this end users such as CITES have a lot of influence in this as it is very difficult to change systems with them. Under their international treaty the changing of the nomenclatural system will require all signatory nations to agree to this. Which may or may not happen. In any case this is largely why its mostly paleontologists using phylocode as there is no endangered species issues for them. The
Lineaen system has its issues for sure but it can be made to work with PhyloCode much easier than PhyloCode can be made to work with endangered species legislation. PhyloCode is too unstable for species nomenclature that must pass through government who generally take at least 2 years to change registered species acts. We recently did a survey of the worlds taxonomists, about to be published in PNAS, that showed minimal support for PhyloCode among general users of taxonomy. Cheers
1031:(3) a section on the relationships between the definitions, but I suspect this would already be covered by (1) and (2). I can't honestly see that a single article on any pair of concepts A and B that has to say that each has different definitions and that in some A includes B, in others A equals B, and in yet others B includes A, is any less confusing that the present arrangement. These just are confusing/confused/disputed concepts. But if you are really keen, you could develop a single article in draft space and ask for comments on using it to replace the existing two.
85:
431:
343:
322:
504:
353:
21:
76:
149:
1432:
1559:
is not "unstable" (not sure what you mean by this), although when it existed as a preliminary draft, it changed more frequently than the rank-based codes; but these were versions of the code that were not enforced. And the slow change in the rank-based codes exasperates some users (some of whom I know personaly). However, future will tell which approach is right for clades. Cheers.
139:
118:
247:
226:
463:
1366:
taxonomy. I think this would make for a better discussion on the topic as all the various controversies could be discussed in one place. However this would be a significant amount of work. Perhaps a team of editors could dedicate some time to do this properly, those familiar with the topics and the literature on the issues. Cheers
565:
discussion forums either on a serious topic. I'm not sure why we're citing EB, certainly no better than
Knowledge, instead of going to reliable review papers of which there are many in taxonomy. I've marked up some of the most glaring cases and added some citation needed tags; no doubt more could be done in that direction.
1558:
Oh, and I forgot to mention: the PhyloCode does not regulate species names, mostly because many species concepts do not imply monophyly, and many established species are not clades, so your comment about this topic shows that you did not take time to read on the basic info on the PhyloCode. This code
1470:
Edit: I did some digging, and the information in the PhyloCode article is also out of date. I was also unaware that verbatim specifications of the edits needed were necessary; it was my first time making an edit request, and I was unaware of the exact requirements. I'll update the PhyloCode page and
564:
This article has recently passed a GA review with very few questions asked. I've had a look through it and have removed some extremely flaky sources - we obviously can't use
Rhymezone (a list of Knowledge articles that mention a topic, apparently) as a reliable source, and we shouldn't be relying on
1508:
This section was indeed seriously out of date. I updated it, with reliable recent references. Some of the text gave an overly optimistic view of the satisfaction that the rank-based codes provide, even among the proponents of this system, as shown by the Linz
Zoocode project, which is supported by
1142:
a single article at "Taxonomy" with "Systematics" redirecting to it does not seem to me to present a neutral point of view. Sure, "Taxonomy" needs to say that some sources treat it as synonymous with "Systematics", and vice versa, but two articles can properly present the views of the sources that
1523:
Just a comment on the phylocode vs
Lineaen Taxonomy issue. At present those that use Phylocode are restricted by several issues. First is that they do not have any support among the primary users of taxonomy, for example IUCN, CITES and most importantly the IUBS. The reason the Lineaen System has
745:
the very long discussions were concerned with the meaning of terms, and hence whether they were different. There's a great deal to read, but the discussion does demonstrate that the boundaries are difficult to draw: if you merge the articles on systematics and taxonomy, which I agree can be done,
820:
a major difficulty in all attempts to explain 'higher level' biological terminology is that there are two kinds of source, often in conflict: a smaller number of expositions by theoretically minded biologists, and a much larger number of examples of actual use by non-theoreticians, who generally
1365:
before closing, I did as I wrote what I said earlier have a small after thought, but it would require some substantive changes to the taxonomy page. You could merge them and have
Systematics as a sub heading under taxonomy and bring it and others in as various methods utilized in the science of
568:
On the more technical question of whether the use of primary sources is appropriate I will not venture an opinion: if we are simply stating that Woese introduced a new idea in 1990 or whatever, that is essentially fine; further, if we use the summary sections of such papers for basic background
1573:
well as a secretary of a working group for the IUBS that deals with taxonomy, and a professional taxonomist, also a member of Linz Code, and part of a group that monitors and develops
International CheckList metrics I would say I hear different, directly from the people concerned. Cheers
569:
information, that's fine too. What would not be ok would be to use
Knowledge's voice to say Woese was correct and to cite that to his paper. I have not noticed any such usage here but a far more careful look would be required to answer that question.
792:
I am not sure what has been said in the past, I may even have commented on past proposals I do not recall. However I would argue against this proposal as
Systematics is a method and tool of taxonomy, one of many, but the reverse is not true. Cheers
1022:
but the problem remains that there are multiple definitions of the terms that are inconsistent, which I think is easier to discuss in separate articles. A combined article would need (1) a section on the alternative definitions of
1638:
1080:
the section itself already answers many questions that there are multiple definitions of the terms that are inconsistent. I can be extended, and we will not need 2 sections as you proposed. The alternative definitions of
1509:
several systematists (though a tiny proportion of the practitioners of rank-based nomenclature). But most systematists are part of a "silent majority" that did not express itself. So, I reformulated this slightly.
1628:
1643:
692:" was proposed many times in the last 10 years; you can see the (very long) archive of this talk page and the (very long) talk page of "Systematics". 79.32.196.252 00:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
634:
1540:
Sorry, but some of what you write is factually wrong (not speaking about opinions, which are irrefutable). IUBS does recognise the PhyloCode because the ISPN, which develops it, is a
825:
makes it clear that, at least in 2011, there was no consensus as to the relationship between the two. As far as I can see, there still isn't. There are sources (such as
304:
746:
then why is classification a separate article? How can you have taxonomy and classification without nomenclature? See also my response to
Faendalimas below.
1668:
822:
294:
1673:
1683:
1653:
1623:
399:
198:
1633:
409:
208:
32:
1613:
270:
821:
ignore the theoreticians. The first is easy to include as a reference in an article, the second is not. The review in a blog by Wilkins archived
1269:
but that's the heart of the issue: are there two subjects or one? But I entirely agree that both articles need work, and have done for years.
1658:
1663:
699:
46:
1678:
1648:
638:
375:
254:
231:
174:
769:
517:
1618:
1608:
89:
1541:
38:
489:
1463:(originally written on March 31, 2015) to match more up-to-date information on the implementation of PhyloCode available in
1411:
366:
327:
165:
123:
98:
1544:! It was admitted in IUBS in 2008, although the ISPN should have communicated on this, to prevent such misconceptions.
916:
to be upheld, since there has to be due treatment of all positions on the relationship between the relevant concepts.
547:
53:
1200:
is very weak and almost empty. I moved few sentences which can enrich this article here, while leaving them also in
1476:
1196:, ok, if you want the article "Systematics" to stay, I will close this proposal as "no consencus". But the article
437:
1388:
912:, given that there's considerable confusion in sources. A major issue would be whether one article would enable
526:
1472:
1204:
page. The only argument to keep it is preserving NPOV, but I do not feel that that it the write way to treat
1564:
1549:
1514:
1438:
1274:
1148:
1036:
921:
858:
751:
703:
622:
596:
574:
1384:
266:
20:
104:
695:
957:, or something like this will make it clearer? There we can write that there are sources that make
374:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
269:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1560:
1545:
1510:
1460:
1325:
1270:
1205:
1191:
1144:
1086:
1077:
1071:
1032:
948:
917:
854:
747:
717:
689:
662:
658:
618:
586:
570:
532:
479:
1499:
1407:
475:
42:
1330:
these are two related subjects which both are already treated good enough in this article. --
1575:
1525:
1367:
1335:
1217:
1098:
986:
880:
815:
794:
777:
725:
674:
604:
528:
503:
1210:
creating an article about a subject that is already treated in an article is not permitted
666:
342:
321:
913:
358:
259:
154:
1602:
263:
1495:
1401:
768:
As far as I can see classification is not a separate article, it is merged here be
482:. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see
352:
1331:
1264:
1213:
1201:
1197:
1137:
1094:
1017:
982:
903:
876:
773:
740:
721:
713:
685:
670:
654:
600:
712:
Sorry, but I can not find any of the proposals of the merging of the articles "
661:. I think the content in Systematics can easily be explained in the context of
148:
1486:
I've marked the request as answered for now – when you're ready, just replace
530:
348:
144:
1585:
1568:
1553:
1535:
1518:
1503:
1480:
1464:
1416:
1392:
1377:
1339:
1278:
1221:
1152:
1102:
1040:
990:
925:
884:
862:
804:
781:
755:
729:
678:
642:
626:
608:
599:
in several places, so it would be worthwhile to find more reliable sources.
578:
592:
441:
246:
225:
371:
170:
138:
117:
1639:
Knowledge level-3 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
1426:
533:
497:
457:
425:
69:
15:
1143:
consider them different. Anyway, I think I've made my point.
875:
The existence of two articles make it even more confusing. --
845:
the same; there are sources (favoured by Wilkins) that make
169:, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
1629:
Knowledge vital articles in Biology and health sciences
1399:
Removed merge notice after six months of inactivity. --
484:
470:
436:
On 15 April 2013, it was proposed that this article be
59:
1644:
GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
837:; there are sources (reviewed by Wilkins) that make
370:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
258:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1465:
the History section of the PhyloCode Knowledge page
665:, and a merger would not cause any article-size or
1459:Please update outdated paragraph on PhyloCode in
1027:(2) a section on the alternative definitions of
770:Talk:Taxonomy (biology)/Archive 1#Merge proposal
173:on Knowledge. Leave messages on the WikiProject
45:. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
1423:Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023
955:relationship between Systematics and Taxonomy
541:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1089:. As well as the alternative definitions of
1494:in the template to reactivate the request.
488:; for the discussion at that location, see
1471:return with a properly formatted request.
693:
649:Merger Systematics into Taxonomy (biology)
316:
220:
112:
973:the same and there are sources that make
1581:
1531:
1461:Modern system of classification section
1373:
800:
318:
222:
114:
1209:
909:
635:2600:8805:4A11:2400:18C:5D1E:B451:5491
551:when more than 3 sections are present.
7:
364:This article is within the scope of
252:This article is within the scope of
75:
73:
445:
103:It is of interest to the following
1669:High-importance taxonomic articles
279:Knowledge:WikiProject Tree of Life
14:
1674:WikiProject Tree of Life articles
545:may be automatically archived by
282:Template:WikiProject Tree of Life
41:. If you can improve it further,
1684:High-importance science articles
1654:High-importance Biology articles
1624:Knowledge level-3 vital articles
1430:
829:) that agree with you in making
502:
461:
429:
351:
341:
320:
245:
224:
147:
137:
116:
83:
74:
19:
1634:GA-Class level-3 vital articles
404:This article has been rated as
299:This article has been rated as
203:This article has been rated as
1614:Natural sciences good articles
965:, there are sources that make
908:I'm not sure that it makes it
33:Natural sciences good articles
29:has been listed as one of the
1:
1542:scientific member of the ISPN
1087:Taxonomy (biology)#Definition
1078:Taxonomy (biology)#Definition
684:The merging of the articles "
384:Knowledge:WikiProject Science
378:and see a list of open tasks.
273:and see a list of open tasks.
183:Knowledge:WikiProject Biology
1659:WikiProject Biology articles
1586:11:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1569:11:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1554:11:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1536:11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1519:10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1504:09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1481:08:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
1393:03:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
1378:17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1340:16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1279:16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1222:14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1153:14:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1103:10:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1041:10:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
991:09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
926:09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
885:08:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
863:07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
805:05:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
782:08:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
756:07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
730:00:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
387:Template:WikiProject Science
186:Template:WikiProject Biology
1664:GA-Class taxonomic articles
1453:to reactivate your request.
1441:has been answered. Set the
679:20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
1700:
1383:Yes it should be merged .
833:a more specific term than
579:07:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
410:project's importance scale
305:project's importance scale
209:project's importance scale
1679:GA-Class science articles
1649:GA-Class Biology articles
471:Biological classification
403:
336:
298:
240:
202:
132:
111:
1417:10:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
627:16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
617:Indeed. Go right ahead.
609:16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
591:This article also cites
255:WikiProject Tree of Life
1619:GA-Class vital articles
1609:Knowledge good articles
643:12:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
597:Encyclopedia Brittanica
827:The Kew Plant Glossary
548:Lowercase sigmabot III
468:The contents of the
90:level-3 vital article
39:good article criteria
1473:DidSomebodySayChaos
910:even more confusing
367:WikiProject Science
166:WikiProject Biology
57:: April 14, 2017. (
718:Taxonomy (biology)
690:Taxonomy (biology)
663:Taxonomy (biology)
659:Taxonomy (biology)
653:I propose merging
480:Taxonomy (biology)
285:taxonomic articles
161:Taxonomy (biology)
99:content assessment
27:Taxonomy (biology)
1583:
1533:
1457:
1456:
1415:
1375:
802:
707:
698:comment added by
555:
554:
496:
495:
456:
455:
424:
423:
420:
419:
416:
415:
315:
314:
311:
310:
219:
218:
215:
214:
68:
67:
64:
1691:
1578:
1528:
1493:
1489:
1448:
1444:
1434:
1433:
1427:
1405:
1404:
1385:ScholarAjayYadav
1370:
1329:
1268:
1195:
1141:
1075:
1021:
953:maybe a section
952:
907:
819:
797:
744:
590:
550:
534:
506:
498:
487:
465:
464:
458:
444:. The result of
433:
432:
426:
392:
391:
390:science articles
388:
385:
382:
361:
356:
355:
345:
338:
337:
332:
324:
317:
287:
286:
283:
280:
277:
249:
242:
241:
236:
228:
221:
191:
190:
189:Biology articles
187:
184:
181:
157:
152:
151:
141:
134:
133:
128:
120:
113:
96:
87:
86:
79:
78:
77:
70:
62:
60:Reviewed version
51:
23:
16:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1599:
1598:
1576:
1526:
1491:
1487:
1446:
1442:
1431:
1425:
1400:
1368:
1323:
1262:
1189:
1135:
1069:
1015:
946:
901:
813:
795:
738:
651:
584:
562:
560:Article quality
546:
535:
529:
511:
483:
462:
430:
406:High-importance
389:
386:
383:
380:
379:
357:
350:
331:High‑importance
330:
301:High-importance
284:
281:
278:
275:
274:
235:High‑importance
234:
205:High-importance
188:
185:
182:
179:
178:
163:is part of the
153:
146:
127:High‑importance
126:
97:on Knowledge's
94:
84:
58:
12:
11:
5:
1697:
1695:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1676:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1656:
1651:
1646:
1641:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1556:
1455:
1454:
1435:
1424:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1396:
1395:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1085:is already in
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
868:
867:
866:
865:
808:
807:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
761:
760:
759:
758:
733:
732:
709:
708:
650:
647:
646:
645:
631:
630:
629:
612:
611:
561:
558:
553:
552:
540:
537:
536:
531:
527:
525:
522:
521:
513:
512:
507:
501:
494:
493:
466:
454:
453:
450:page not moved
446:the discussion
434:
422:
421:
418:
417:
414:
413:
402:
396:
395:
393:
376:the discussion
363:
362:
359:Science portal
346:
334:
333:
325:
313:
312:
309:
308:
297:
291:
290:
288:
271:the discussion
250:
238:
237:
229:
217:
216:
213:
212:
201:
195:
194:
192:
159:
158:
155:Biology portal
142:
130:
129:
121:
109:
108:
102:
80:
66:
65:
50:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1696:
1685:
1682:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1662:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1642:
1640:
1637:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1604:
1587:
1579:
1577:Scott Thomson
1572:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1561:Michel Laurin
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1546:Michel Laurin
1543:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1529:
1527:Scott Thomson
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1511:Michel Laurin
1507:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1452:
1449:parameter to
1440:
1436:
1429:
1428:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1403:
1398:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1371:
1369:Scott Thomson
1341:
1337:
1333:
1327:
1326:Peter coxhead
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:Peter coxhead
1266:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1193:
1192:Peter coxhead
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1145:Peter coxhead
1139:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1073:
1072:Peter coxhead
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:Peter coxhead
1030:
1026:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
950:
949:Peter coxhead
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
927:
923:
919:
918:Peter coxhead
915:
911:
905:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
886:
882:
878:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
864:
860:
856:
855:Peter coxhead
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
798:
796:Scott Thomson
791:
790:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
757:
753:
749:
748:Peter coxhead
742:
737:
736:
735:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
705:
701:
700:79.32.196.252
697:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:Chiswick Chap
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
588:
587:Chiswick Chap
583:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
571:Chiswick Chap
566:
559:
557:
549:
544:
539:
538:
524:
523:
520:
519:
515:
514:
510:
505:
500:
499:
491:
490:its talk page
486:
481:
477:
473:
472:
467:
460:
459:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
428:
427:
411:
407:
401:
398:
397:
394:
377:
373:
369:
368:
360:
354:
349:
347:
344:
340:
339:
335:
329:
326:
323:
319:
306:
302:
296:
293:
292:
289:
272:
268:
265:
261:
257:
256:
251:
248:
244:
243:
239:
233:
230:
227:
223:
210:
206:
200:
197:
196:
193:
176:
172:
168:
167:
162:
156:
150:
145:
143:
140:
136:
135:
131:
125:
122:
119:
115:
110:
106:
100:
92:
91:
81:
72:
71:
61:
56:
55:
48:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1488:answered=yes
1469:
1458:
1450:
1439:edit request
1364:
1090:
1082:
1028:
1024:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
694:— Preceding
669:problems. --
652:
567:
563:
556:
542:
516:
508:
469:
449:
405:
365:
300:
276:Tree of Life
267:tree of life
264:phylogenetic
253:
232:Tree of Life
204:
164:
160:
105:WikiProjects
88:
52:
43:please do so
31:
30:
26:
1582:Faendalimas
1532:Faendalimas
1492:answered=no
1374:Faendalimas
1206:WP:NPOVVIEW
1202:Systematics
1198:Systematics
1083:systematics
1025:systematics
975:systematics
971:systematics
963:systematics
847:systematics
843:systematics
831:systematics
816:Faendalimas
801:Faendalimas
714:Systematics
686:Systematics
655:Systematics
485:its history
1603:Categories
1443:|answered=
1076:basically
474:page were
37:under the
961:include
667:weighting
175:talk page
93:is rated
1412:contribs
1091:taxonomy
1029:taxonomy
979:taxonomy
977:include
967:taxonomy
959:taxonomy
851:taxonomy
849:include
839:taxonomy
835:taxonomy
696:unsigned
593:phys.org
509:Archives
442:Taxonomy
262:and the
260:taxonomy
95:GA-class
47:reassess
1496:Tollens
1402:Elmidae
914:WP:NPOV
716:" and "
688:" and "
543:90 days
408:on the
381:Science
372:Science
328:Science
303:on the
207:on the
180:Biology
171:biology
124:Biology
1332:Heanor
1265:Heanor
1214:Heanor
1208:rule.
1138:Heanor
1095:Heanor
1018:Heanor
983:Heanor
904:Heanor
877:Heanor
774:Heanor
741:Heanor
722:Heanor
671:Heanor
633:When?
601:Jarble
476:merged
101:scale.
54:Review
1490:with
1447:|ans=
1437:This
720:". --
657:into
478:into
438:moved
82:This
1565:talk
1550:talk
1515:talk
1500:talk
1477:talk
1408:talk
1389:talk
1336:talk
1275:talk
1218:talk
1149:talk
1099:talk
1093:. --
1037:talk
987:talk
981:. --
969:and
922:talk
881:talk
859:talk
841:and
823:here
778:talk
772:. --
752:talk
726:talk
704:talk
675:talk
639:talk
623:talk
605:talk
595:and
575:talk
448:was
400:High
295:High
199:High
1584:)
1534:)
1445:or
1376:)
803:)
440:to
49:it.
1605::
1567:)
1552:)
1517:)
1502:)
1479:)
1467:.
1451:no
1410:·
1391:)
1338:)
1277:)
1220:)
1212:--
1151:)
1101:)
1039:)
989:)
924:)
883:)
861:)
853:.
780:)
754:)
728:)
706:)
677:)
641:)
625:)
607:)
577:)
63:).
1580:(
1563:(
1548:(
1530:(
1513:(
1498:(
1475:(
1414:)
1406:(
1387:(
1372:(
1334:(
1328::
1324:@
1273:(
1267::
1263:@
1216:(
1194::
1190:@
1147:(
1140::
1136:@
1097:(
1074::
1070:@
1035:(
1020::
1016:@
985:(
951::
947:@
920:(
906::
902:@
879:(
857:(
818::
814:@
799:(
776:(
750:(
743::
739:@
724:(
702:(
673:(
637:(
621:(
603:(
589::
585:@
573:(
518:1
492:.
452:.
412:.
307:.
211:.
177:.
107::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
