Newsgroups: sci.bio Path: utzoo!snell From: snell@utzoo.uucp (snell) Subject: Re: Questions about bio-taxonomic levels? Message-ID: <1989Sep27.175912.3632@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:59:12 GMT Re: Questions about bio-taxonomic levels? In article <11564@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM>, overt@antony (Christian Overton) writes: [Long lists of higher taxonomic categories... deleted] >Is the above correct? In addition, we cannot properly place >'division/subdivision', which occur, for example, both above 'class' >and below 'suborder', and 'section' and 'series' both of which occur >below infraorder, but cannot be ordered relative to each other. >Pointers to an easily accessible text on the subject of bio-taxonomies >would also be appreciated. >Thanks. Part of the problem is that there is not simply one system, though the Linnaean system is generally followed. Levels required to adequately describe diversification and differentiation within one group may not be required in another. As well, taxonomists will not typically be inagreement about the position of any particular set of organisms, nor their relationships to each other. Any taxonomic hierarchy you come up with, no matter how careful you are, will be at best tentative. To look at the bright side, at least it would be a potentially `falsifiable' hypothesis. For references, try the following book chapter and journal article: 1) Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York. (In particular, Chapter 5: The Hierarchy of Categories and the Higher Taxa.) 2) Buck, R.C. and D.L. Hull. 1966. The logical structure of the Linnaean hierarchy. Systematic Zoology 15: 97-111. Both will be in any decent university library. -- Name: Richard Snell Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!snell BITNET: snell@zoo.utoronto.ca