Talk:Principle of Binominal Nomenclature

Principle of Binominal Nomenclature is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Tree of Life

This redirect 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 articles

I examined the content of this separate page on Binominal nomenclature very carefully alongside the content of the much longer page Binomial nomenclature, and it was clear that the only differences were

the additional n in the spelling
the preference of some zoologists (allegedly, judging by remarks in the page) for the Binominal spelling.

For all ordinary visitors, and for the academic world at large, there is no difference between these terms except the above, and really both are trivial. Ther is a lot to say about the system; it was all said very well on the other page; and it made no sense to expand this page by saying it all twice.

All the English dictionaries I have in printed form (including many large recent editions) and the online ones I've seen treat both spellings as perfectly synonymous in biological taxonomy contexts, and there was no real scientific, semantic, linguistic, or even cultural reason to have a separate page of coverage here.

I have revised, expanded and clarified the Binomial... page to reflect the sensitivities of any zoologists who object to omission of the -n- and trust that nobody out there is going to destroy these efforts by reverting or vandalism! Iph 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)iph[reply]

It might have been better to discuss this beforehand. My concern is you don't mention discussing the codes for usages. KP Botany 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary name should also be merged and redirected to this one. MrDarwin 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. KP Botany 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made redirect[edit]

This page says nothing that isn't in Binomial nomenclature; has almost no links to it; isn't referenced. So I've made it a redirect to Binomial nomenclature. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion was later undone, without any explanation here. I left the page alone, hoping that it might be added to and so justified. It remains almost word-for-word identical to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature#Principle of Binominal Nomenclature. What is the point of a separate article which simply reproduces a section of a longer and better-referenced article? So I am going to repeat my former edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]