|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'd like to order more information: how many orders of plants are there? how many of animals? I'd like a side order of a link to a list. Thank you. Pliny 20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The term used before Linnaeus
The article says that the term 'order' was introduced by Rivinus instead of genus summum. But, in aphorism 200, Linnaeus's Philosophia Botanica, Linnaeus indicates his term ordo corresponds to sectio of Tournefort and genus subalternum of Ray and Rivinus. Also his classis to ordo of Tournefort and genus summum of Ray and Rivinus. In Latin, genus summum literally means "the highest genus". So it seems reasonable that genus summum corresponds to classis in Linnean system and ordo in Tournefort's system, as these terms are the highest rank in each system. So my question is "Is it certain that Rivinus (not Tournefort) has introduced the term 'order'?" Please note I am quite new to Latin and I have never read treatises of Tournefort, Rivinus, and Ray.--Mzaki 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I rely on autopsy here. I red Rivinus myself, and I can confirm that. Actually, I can provide you with a reference to my book published in Russian touсhing upon the issue, though it would be, I am afraid, of little use for anyone who does not read Russian :) The concept of rank was at that time in statu nascendi and authors did not use terms consistently. The Ray's genus summum corresponds roughly to Rivinus's ordo (and Rivinus uses genus summum and ordo interchangeably), and Tournefort's classis. Linnaeus's ordo corresponds to Tournefort's section. Note, plese, that all correspondences are rather rough. One can compare different pre-linnaean classifications using Classes Plantarum by Linnaeus. Alexei Kouprianov 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I've been interested in your book, however, it would be unfortunately all Greek to me as you supposed :) --Mzaki 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There should be a better picture to illustrate what makes a midge different from other small black flies.Tim Callahan 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only plants
I am alarmed at the attachment of this article apparently only to WikiProject Plants; the rank applies in animal taxonomy also, as therefore should the article given its inclusive title.
"order (ordo) was reserved for a higher rank, for what in the nineteenth century had often been boobinlaw or Labiatae)"
The final words of the above appear to be an editing error. The word "boobinlaw" is unknown to me or the dictionaries and the word Labiatae is apparently that of a [plant Family] and does not parse coherently in the context. Iph 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)iph
what does this mean?
- I'm editing that to:
But I don't know if the fact is accurate -- and perhaps it would be better stated in reverse: for the names of most avian and reptilian (and other?) orders, as invertebrate orders certainly are more numerous...
Need Explanation of Parvorder
The Parvorder article redirects here, but there is no description of this recent term — not found in dictionaries. It needs a sub-section explaining its coining, etymology, and whether universally accepted or not (in ornithology, other fields).
Other types of orders (infraorder, etc.) then need a brief sub-section each also.
- It's a new(?) intermediate rank introduced by McKenna & Bell in 1997. I've added a sentence to the article mentioning "Grandorder" and "Mirorder". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Even though the ICZN does not regulate the formation of Order names, would it be useful to include a description of how most of them are formed, and also a list of suffixes commonly used? For example, -ia, -acea, -idea, etc. Myrddin_Wyllt 11/4/2012