Disputatio:Animalia

Perhaps we can keep these two as separate pages if we rename Animalia as Regnum Animalium?--Rafaelgarcia 01:49, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starfish and Jellyfish = stella maris, medusa? Or how did the Romans call it? Teutonius 23:51, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vide Scyphozoa, forsitan medusa est nomen usitatum (quod a linguis Romanicis et pagina scyphozoa illa coniecto), sed Morgan quoque dat: urtîca marîna [Plaut.; s.16] (Helf.), pulmo, halipleumon (Lev.)--Rafaelgarcia 00:03, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Halipleumon" is Greek meaning "pulmo marinus" (auqatic lung). I think "urtica marina" would be fine for the stinging ones (with nettles)? Hard to believe the Romans didnt have an own word for it? Or did they raelly say "pulmo marinus, piscis mollis (cf. jellyfish!), massae rotundae &ct."? Teutonius 01:35, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version (of Hendricus):

Systema taxinomicum Animalis[fontem recensere]

Supraimperium: Biota
- Imperium: Eucaryota
  - Regnum: Animalia
    - Gradus: Protozoa
    - Gradus: Metazoa
    - Genus: † Annulusichnus
    - Genus: † Aspidella (Billings, 1872)
    - Genus: † Bradgatia (Boynton & Ford, 1995)
    - Genus: † Ivesia (Boynton & Ford, 1995)
    - Genus: † Thectardis (Clapham, 2004)
    - Phylum: † Trilobozoa (Fedonkin, 1985)

Teutonius 11:13, 25 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good idea to place the previous version here, as it makes discussion easier (if there is any!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:17, 25 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say it a version, it only unralated, irrelevant stuff. I dont know whitch orders these (extinct?) species belong to, and because I also dint want to delete them, I shifted them over here, or what should I do with them? Teutonius 05:55, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protozoa[fontem recensere]

Could someone explain why protozoa is a subkingdom of Animalia? It would seem to contradict every modern definition of this kingdom as consisting entirely of multicellular organisms (metazoa). see for example: en:Kingdom (biology). Is there an attestion to justify the new kind of classification presented here, including protozoa with the metazoa? It seems like an attempt to create an entirely new classification..--Rafaelgarcia 04:30, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seems to be something in what you say ... but I'll leave those who actually know about these higher reaches of classification, if any do, to comment further.

A supplementary question: moving Animalia to Animal agrees with our normal rule "singular form", but we have always made an exception for the higher levels of Linnaean classification, from family upwards, because all these names are officially plural and we have gone along with that. Do you plan to change in other cases, or was there a special reason in this case? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them back. I wasn't aware of our exception, which I am OK with. The classification scheme used here, however, is strange; at the very least the author should explain where he is getting it....I am not able to identify which one it is. It is not a modern one. It is not an ancient one.--Rafaelgarcia 11:25, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I agree. But will the author come back? ... we'll see. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 29 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ave!, Quo modo linguam recenseris en:Cryptozoology Anglia et Lingua Latina? Ita vero! The Cryptozoology article needs editors who are more skilled than I (obviously) in Lingua Latina to translate the english version into Latin, or at best make a stub article on the topic. Gratias! --Gniniv 08:26, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English wiki has more than 3 000 000 articles that need translating into Latin, for which all good help is welcome! IacobusAmor 11:25, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. In this case the stub already exists at Cryptozoologia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)[reply]