Talk:History of zoology (1859–1912)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article was copied from an early-twentieth century source of unknown provenance. It ends in mid-sentence. --Jose Ramos 13:42, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Time Span...

What is the logic for having this article end in 1912... I mean besides the 1911 encyclopedia... Jabencarsey 04:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, this really is a terrible article! What can be done? There isn't any modern work with such scope, and this is bad even for 1911... Macdonald-ross 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)