Talk:Incertae sedis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The present form looks like overkill. I don't see that the "example" illustrates anything. This entry looks like it would benefit by cleaning? Brya 09:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree if you chose to reduce the example a bit or change it, but the explanations as to why a taxon might be labelled as incertae sedis are vital to the article. What's left without them is just a dictionary definition and not encyclopedic concerning a topic that definitely has potential to be encyclopedic. --Aranae 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this as close to being complete nonsense as I have ever seen. Firstly, the so-called "example" features humans. Anything involving the taxonomy of humans has far too much baggage to be suitable for anything other than stirring up controversy and making taxonomy look bad. Secondly, the example goes to great length to present a taxonomy and then blithely proceeds "if this were not the case, and we were to write an SF scenario we could think up an imaginary case of incertae sedis". So even by its own admission it is the opposite of an example.

If you want a real example why not provide one? Brya 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)