Talk:Order (biology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Order (biology) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Incomprehensible text[edit]

"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?[edit]

I don't understand the last sentence of the intro: "Most of orders ends up with word -iformes, except for mammals and invertebrates." Could someone clarify? --Allen (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm editing that to:

' The Latin suffix -(i)formes meaning "having the form of" is used for the scientific name of most orders, except for those of mammals and invertebrates. '

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... (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC) IFORMS EDITOR

Need Explanation of Parvorder[edit]

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.

I got here by exactly the same emthod. What is a pervorder, and how / why is it different than an infraorder or suborder? I've never heard it before, but the intermediate clasificiations are used all over WP.Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Mirorder redirects here, but this article does not seem to define the term. What does it mean?-- (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Common suffixes?[edit]

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