h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A588936

My first entry (actually my second, but my first isn't ready yet)

This entry came up when I started refering to Genus and Species during my lemur entry, and found that we had no entry on Linnean Taxonomy.

Hey there - this is my first post in peer review, so correct me if I'm going about this the wrong way

I liked your entry - but I want more information! I've never studied biology, so I have no idea what's meant by Theria and Eutheria, and how that seperates us from other mammals. Other than that I was able to follow it easily enough.

Cheers,<SMILEY TYPE="cheers"/>

DG

Tsk, must learn to use those smileys properly...

,

DG

Well, I could certainly describe each taxa in the human classification. And I don't see why not... I'll get on it....

Hi, Will of God!
I really like this - the guide certainly should have an edited entry on taxonomy and this has the makings of a very good one.

Two general points strike me about the entry:
The arrangement of headers and sub-headers in the 'Current Classification' section seems a bit odd. I would be inclined to put Linnaeus and Ray under a separate header ('Pioneers of Classification' or similar) and leave the 'Current Classification' header covering the actual section starting with the hierarchy.

I think it would be worth putting in a one or two line explanation of the Kingdoms - the Protista kingdom catches out anyone who learned an old-fashioned plant/animal division.

A little nitpick: I think you should say that humans have a built in fascination *with* classification. Pedants would insist that fascination *for* works in the opposite direction: classification has a built in fascination for humans.

Azara

Be sure when presenting your human classification that you include the recent developments that have occured in that community. A new species has been indentified.



Aaron

Great work

I like this sort of article, interesting, informative and lively

I look forward to your next one.

Thanks for the input... I am putting it to use right now...

I cleaned up some of the GuideML, moved some stuff around, added kingdom descriptions, and most importantly changed that "for" to a "with"

Now the animalia description is duplicated... but it looks right that way to me...

Aaron,
Are you speaking of the new "homo" genus fossil (Homo rudolphensis, I believe)?
or K. platyops (which is a hominid)?
or A. garhi?
There is a discovery in fossil record of a new human ancestor (or potential ancestor) at least once a year....

It would date my entry to add "current" events would it not? Is this common practice?

Don't you want to make the article as current as possible. . .there is some certainy in the anthropological community is the newest addition to the homo line, they date the split to it rather than A. afarensis now nased on the morphology of the teeth. I am speaking of K. platyops.

Rudolphensis and garhi are older discoveries than the platyops.

Now I am confused as to what you want me to update? The criteria of the Genus "Homo"?

I have no problem with changing something that is incorrect... but I don't want to focus on the taxonomy of humans by adding any more material (unless you feel that it is too short) and I haven't really gone into any detail of the human ancetorial line.

Hi, Will of God!

I think all the changes have made the entry even better. (But then I would, wouldn't I? )

A couple of small points:
In the Kingdoms description, I think it would be important to change the Monera description of 'doesn't produce own food' since this group includes some chemosynthetic bacteria and photosynthetic blue-green algae. ('Varied methods of nutrition' is the kind of description some people settle for).
And I think you should footnote the terms prokaryotic and eukaryotic, since a lot of people won't understand them.

More generally, with regard to the points Aaron raised about other genus Homo relatives: I thought that your entry was taking the full classification of our human species as an example of taxonomic classification, and in that case you don't need to include any other human relatives here. Discussion of the fossil record and related species and genera surely deserves a separate article!

Finally, with regard to the two entries you have linked to - the Cladistics one is an edited entry, but the 'classification fascination' one is not, and the sub-editor will take out that link if (or as I hope, when) your entry is recommended. The reason apparently is that the edited entries are fixed, but the authors can change the unedited entries at any time, so the link can't be guaranteed to make sense in the future.
Anyway, nice work so far!

Azara

HI Will of God

Excellent article. Perhaps you could consider fleshing out the bit on how Genus and Species names are chosen, how they are sometimes descriptive of form, location or discoverer etc. I think the word 'Latin' should appear somewhere.

This is a reply to the genus post. . .I misunderstood your intent I am sorry, no I think including only for the genus Homo is fine, I thought you would be going way back into antiquity. And that would probably encompass about more time than I am sure you are willing to commit, I know I wouldn't be willing. No I am sorry for my inclusion, I misread it. Your information is correct and great, keep up the good work my friend.

Aaron

Regarding Monera... Doh... you are totally correct and I feel a fool for putting it in that way... it is what cut and paste will get you.

Regarding evolutionary history of our species: I would love to do it... but it is definatly worth an entry all to itself. Perhaps linked to that mytochondial DNA entry (What do you mean we don't have one!)

Footnotes for definitions: Are there any others that are needed other than cell types?

Genus and Species selection: I'll see if I can smooth it in...

BTW there are other sub classifications for humans, but I don't know if they are generally accepted... they may very well be, but I can only find them in a few sources. Perhaps someone here knows....

Superclass: tetrapoda (this makes sense to me and I have seen it before, but not with humans. I have seen about 6 possible Superclasses for humans including: Gnathostomata,Teleostomi,Euteleostomi,Sarcopterygii,and Amniota which is why I left it out)

Superorder: Archonta (I have references that say WHAT is in this, but not why)

Infraorder: Catarrhini (nostrils are close together, narrow and face downwards?) Can anyone confirm this off the top of their head? I even have a genetic code base for this one...

Wow we DO have a Mitochondria entry... but unfortunetly it doesn't seem to metion that because of genetic drift analysis the DNA seems to imply that all humans came from one (or at least VERY few) ancestor about 5000 years ago.... Gives creationists all sorts of ammo...

If my thinking is correct, and I am pretty sure it is, all of these other classifications you have just named pertain mainly to lower primates, and though they maybe genetic cousins.

The typos in my previous post make me quail....