SporeWiki talk:Taxonomy

From SporeWiki, the knowledge base dedicated to Spore

Contents 1 Content vs. Concept 2 Extinction 3 Automating process 4 Different Taxonomy System 5 Cell Stage Creatures 6 Scientific Naming 7 what happened to 8 New Sections for the Taxonomy 9 Extra Sections, Infra or Sub 10 Simplifying The Name System 11 2 Iguanidaes? 12 Uh, just a quick question 13 My creatures 14 Taxonomy For Spore creatures DS characters and creatures 15 Note for future classifications. 16 Ask Will Wright? 17 Kingdom Plantae 18 SporeWiki:Taxonomy 19 Time for a split 20 Unknown taxon 21 Somarinoa's Species & the Great Conundrum 22 How would I do this? 23 Domains 24 Taxonomise this! 25 Asignment

[edit] Content vs. Concept

I just noticed the difference between content and concept...concept doesn't exist; it's only imagined. Content should be the only classified species. This is going to require correction. Schnautzr 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is fixed now, although there are a few classifications left on concept articles, but I figure they're probably okay. If I run across them again, I'll get rid of them. Schnautzr 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On a further note, each species with classification now requires a screenshot of the creature in the game or creator as proof of its existence. Schnautzr 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction

It's become evident that certain species are extinct. Big Foot, for example, is assymetrical and cannot be used in the current version. Extinct taxa should be designated by a cross like so: †Extinctus specium Schnautzr 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the creatures from the past demonstrations which aren't in Spore anymore should be classified as extinct, e.g. Splodey? Haghog999 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: i believe that if the creature can be created, then it isn't technically extinct. Bigfoot was a creature from a previous version of the game. He was asymetrical, which is impossible to duplicate in the current version. He no longer exists. btw, what is the ascii code for † ? Verades 05:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I copy and paste the cross. You're right. If the creature has the potential to still exist, we assume it's on someone's computer, somewhere, running around. Splodey, Willosaur, and Tamaranian Hopper should all be marked as extinct, since their parts aren't available in the retail version. Even though asymmetry can be produced with a mod, it won't load in the game properly, so it should also be marked as extinct.

Glad to see people are still working diligently on this project! I'm done here-- the game is too much fun to devote any time to the wiki. Keep up the good work, guys! Schnautzr 08:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Atleast creatures like Noog should be Extant, because assymetry actually loads properly, that statement was wrong, anyways they might be extinct because every living thing is symmetric. 159.250.29.4 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Creatures like Noog are classified as extinct because they don't appear in the final game. What you say about asymmetry is true, because The Grox and Anticipaste are in the final game and are asymmetric. However, asymmetric creatures are also considered extinct because a player can't create an asymmetric creature normally, and must use glitches or mods. OluapPlayer 00:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. Think of it this way...the woolly mammoth is extinct, but scientists are hoping to spawn a baby woolly mammoth within the next few centuries using elephants and mammoth DNA from a specimen found trapped in the ice. When that mammoth is born, is the woolly mammoth still extinct? Schnautzr 05:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See the book Jurassic Park for that answer. 72.35.126.158 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Automating process

Could it be possible to make a template, which would tax creatures automatically if enough parameters are specified (amount of feet, fur/skin, mouth/beak, etc.), and do a {{Taxonomy request}} if it isn't able to do it itself? Ose^t•c 20:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Unfortunately, science hasn't even come to consensus on the existing taxa. Check out "True Oyster" on Wikipedia...the members of this taxon are defined by the qualifier "you call it an oyster when you eat it." Taxonomy is pretty messed up, and a template won't be capable of carrying out the task of classification. Good idea, though. I wish it were that simple! I'm pretty much abandoning this project for at least the rest of the summer, since I've got a class and a new job. In fact, I probably won't be around here much more at all. I hope I've inspired enough people to keep this project moving forward! Schnautzr 00:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ingenious idea, but Schnautzr shot it down. We're on the right track though.Infidel775 22:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this again, it appears that this would be somewhat useful for taxonomists. I don't see it completely classifying the organism in most cases (especially since a species epithet is ultimately required), but it would help narrow the classification down. For example, even though it wouldn't be distinguishable via the program whether it was a "true oyster" or not, it could at least determine it was a shellfish and add a taxonomy request template. Schnautzr 05:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Different Taxonomy System

I know very little about taxonomy, and even less about how you're doing it here, but I personally believe that you should invent a new classification system. I believe this because the system use for Earth today is limited and based solely on Earth life, life which hase no more than one head and four limbs. Because of this you are limited by life that exists in the real world. However, if you made your own system you could design it to fit much better to creatures in Spore. Plus, you could change and modify it to work for a creature someone will make specifically to defy classification, I'm sure someone has done or will do the same for the existing system. Morphutate 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I tottally agree with you! This system is waaaaay too complex. It's written in Latin. Why don't we right it in English? I was just looking at a page for 'avoids' which are bird creatures. Why not 'birdoids'? And then we could change the strange unrecongnizable name for four leggeds into 'Quadra', or better yet 'Fourlegi'. Then, four legged birds would be 'Quadrabirdoids' or 'Fourlegibirdoids'. I think that would be much better. This system we're using isn't gonna help anyone. "OMG! It's a Omnivoraflorunimollusc!" How many people do you think are gonna say that when playing Spore? ParadoxJuice 16:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: well, how often do you look at your dog and say, "hello, canus lupis familiaris!"?

you don't. he is commonly referred to as a dog. That's what a common name is. The reason that this is written in latin is because latin is the scientific/medical language, and no matter what language you're used to, be it english, spanish, french, or italian.... you can typically figure out a latin word, since most european languages came from it. You have a good idea, but i'd keep that to common names. "hey, it's a four legged bird!" Verades 06:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The original purpose of the classification system was to show the relationships between organisms, and how similar they are to real life organisms. I tried to do away with the four-legged constraint in the amniotes as best as possible without tearing the whole system apart. The fact is that Linnaeus never considered a six-legged cow. He probably would have classified it as a close relative of the cow, had he known about it. However, today's scientists would step aside and discuss whether it's possible to put a six-legged creature in the bovid family, or if it's even correct to call it a tetrapod. If it can't be called a tetrapod, that disqualifies it as a mammal...and then the whole system falls apart.

When you come across a number of legs qualification in the reptiles/mammals/synapsids/amphibians, ignore it. However, pay heed to it when looking at birds or invertebrates, as these shouldn't throw the system off one bit. If needed, create a new taxon where appropriate.

Hope this helps! 75.16.253.32 08:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The scientific name system was, at least according to my books, developed due to common names being used for multiple species. You see a tiger, and you say tiger. Then you go to some other location and when you see a cheetah, the people there call it a tiger, too. (Note, this is a totally made-up example, but there are cases of this happening; a real life example would be the "June Bug", which is a common name used to describe at least several hundred species of beetle that look vageuly similar enough to cause confusion).Infidel775 22:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Infindel is right it should stay Latin, Fourlegibirdoids sounds dumb, it should be latin, nobody would work on it if it were not in latin, becaue that would make it even more "Cute Spore", we want Science Spore! not a cuddly-wuddly fun you-can-never-lose game of unrealistic evolution. 159.250.29.4 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, an IP user editing articles...Infidel775 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We should base the system somewhat on the Earth taxonomy. There are some creatures that look like Earth creatures, like the Ape and the Anictus (I think that's what it's called, looks like a platapus). But there could be, say, an order or family or genus called Vepres (Latin for "thorn bush") that would have creatures with parts with lots of spikes--not necessaraly the Spike cell part, but spikey parts like the Spurprise. Creatures on Earth, nowadays, are classified by similarities in DNA, but seeing as we can't look at a Spore creature's genes, we'll have to base the taxonomy system in Earth's old method: appearance.--Shaf Girl 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, for an easy way to find Latin names, this site is pretty good.[1]--Shaf Girl 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cell Stage Creatures

After reviewing normal taxonomy for simple celled creatures, it seems that a protist kingdom would be the best fit for the cell stage creatures. Now, as far as the phylum and the rest of the ranks, well, that's where it gets hard, so we may have to just make it up based on cell shape or something... But nobody said that spore taxonomy was an exact science. Verades 03:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)````

Maybe we should classify them based on diet, then on bits of equipment or eyes. Personally, I think we should leave cells out, as I don't think you can download peoples cells, so it would make it a lot harder to classify them.

Sorry, that was me above. Haghog999 08:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though I've left the project, I'd like to add some input. Since the "cells" don't function as cells, but as multicellular organisms with functioning organs, you may want to consider classifying them the way one would classify leeches, worms, and other multicellular organisms. When in doubt, get out the good old Wikipedia and do a bit of research to see what kinds of multicellular microbes really exist. Schnautzr 08:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. The "cells" don't function as single-celled organisms, but they have very simple structures. Annelids (earthworms and leeches) are a bit too complex to fit in the cell category. I decided on the protista kingdom for two reasons: protists can be single celled or multicelled, but are usually very simple.. and they have a flagella, which comes with your new cell (along with eyes but we'll overlook that - pun not intended).

Another possible section, if we would rather keep everything in kingdom animalia, we could put these guys in phylum nematoda (ringworms). Go to wikipedia.org and check out protista and nematoda, then let's all agree on where these guys need to go.Verades 07:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I say that they cannot be classified as protists, 'cause they don't have eyes. I think that it would be best if you created a new kingdom, 'cause then we could have no rules broken. Everybody agree?

ps: I know that I am not a member of the project. I have yet to figure out how to. I will join when I have.

Protists? Are we crazy? They should obviously go in to the kindgom Monera, single celled or simply celled living organisms! Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 01:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the Kingdom Monera idea OluapPlayer 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New idea here: Archludusa. Archa is latin for cell. Ludus is latin for game. I don't think spore "cells" fit into any kingdom. I suggest a new one. Who agrees? Remember that it has been stated that you can make up new kingdoms, phylums, etc. You should do it now.

ps. Could anyone help me figure out how to join the project?

Thanks for the opinion, but Kingdom Monera was already created. And if you want to join, put your name in the list! :D OluapPlayer 16:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Naming

I've been naming the animals I've classfied in French rather than Latin, I was just wondering if anyone had a problem with this, and that I should switch to Latin. If no one has a problem with it, I'll continue to use French. Haghog999 07:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: I looked at two of your creatures, and it looks like you've only named the genus and species in french. Tres bien. je n'ai aucun problème avec cela. (no problem). Just make sure that family/class/order etc are still kept in latin, since it's the majority of the project...but genus/species-- name it whatever you want :) Verades 07:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, just wanted to clarify that. Haghog999 08:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what happened to

what happend to th blindfoot page?--24.121.0.194 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And what is this "Blindfoot" You speak of? did you mean Bigfoot? 159.250.29.4 19:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections for the Taxonomy

With Creepy and Cute out we're seeing new types of creatures being introduced. In my chronicles so far I have analyzed several which I think should be added to the taxonomy, expecially when you consider the new parts and paint styles.

• Undead: This one should be obvious. I dare you to find proof that there are no undead creations in Spore. I estimate 50% of all the total spore creations are "nonliving" in this sense.

• Crystal Creatures: These are less common, but still prevailent. This section usually contains organisms that have gems jutting out of their bodies, a crystal-like paint-job, or are completely "carved" out of a crystal material (which can be done with the right paint-job and pieces).

• Dolls, Stuffed Animals, etc: These are really unusual. Basically, thanks to the "stitched" paint styles Creepy and Cute provided, people are making evil teddy bears, raggity annes, and so on and so forth. By Spore technicalities they are alive, so I think the taxonomy should consider them as such.

• Robots: Ok, this one should've been added from day one. As long as Spore has been out, people have been making robots. It's a fact of life. For them not to have their own Taxonomy is ridiculous, in my opinion.

I believe that these are quite appropriate for the Wiki and easily understandable.

Infidel775 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be unfair not to give these creations their own classification system, but you would probably have to separate them into separate kingdoms, even domains. Undead, nonliving "creatures", dolls, and stuffed animals should belong to the same domain in my opinion: Inanimalia, inanimate beings. Crystal creatures should be classified with whatever other clade is deemed suitable; for example, a horse with crystals jutting out of its body would still belong to the family Equidae because it's still a horse. I think we should draw the line at robots, however. Robots are clearly artificial and thus they don't merit any classification system, as machines don't evolve naturally. --Flytdais 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excllent points, but I don't think undead exactly belong in the inanimate section. They were technically once-living, were they not? I say undead flesh or not, they are are still biological. Dolls and stuffed animals are nobiological, so inanimalia makes more sense.

So, this just leaves what to call such a kingdom. Using an online translator, I have come up with several names:

• Non Victus (latin, "Non-living")
• Lost Animus (latin, "Lost Soul")
• Unvictus (latin, "Unliving")
• Somes (latin, "Corpse")
• Caedo (latin, "Killed")
• Dimidium Victus 9latin, "Half Living")

I can't decide.--Infidel775 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RE-Shouldn't an undead creature be a sub-species of the actual creature? so.. like an undead human should be "homo unvictus" or something to that extent. Verades 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE-Excellent idea. I think we're on to something.Infidel775 09:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Now wait a second...

If we have an inanimate taxonomy, why can't we put robots in there?

It would be "Homo Sapiens Unvictus", as you said sub-species and the species would be Homo Sapiens.

Why don't we make something for the Plants? Kingdom Plantae would be easily tamed, taken the fact that there is a designated number of plants in the game.

The creatures that are "undead" are only made to appear undead, they are actually living, but the creator has shaped them in a way that makes them seem undead, yet they are not. The same goes for the dolls and robots. Simply a chosen shape, they are not actually what they are made to appear. Also, the crystal parts on creatures should be considered to be shells, as they are a protective mineral casing. And plant taxonomies would be great, too. Furby98 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Sections, Infra or Sub

I believe that is two families are very closely related, they should be merged into one family, and the family should be then split into Infragenuses. Also, extremely closely related species should be organized into Subspecies, and Subgenuses maybe if there is a certain type of genus that are too closely related to be the same genus, but since they are not perfect DNA matching they can only be in subgenuses. Maybe some more sub & infra too.

TimeMaster 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a great day for the taxonomy project, obviously.Infidel775 09:23, 69 Zorcember 2008 (SporeWiki Time)

What do you mean by that? I just think very similar families should merged into one and the former families should become infragenuses. TimeMaster

good idea, however we dont want to complicate the standard order of taxa just yet.. but yes, if they are extremely close (two minotaurs that have a slightly different horn size, or something) can be put in sub-orders or what not. but as for now, let's wait until we get there. Do you guys see anything that needs to be split so far? Verades 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE-Timemaster: What I meant by that is that we're on the verge of making a serious update to the taxonomy project. We're looking in directions we hadn't before. If that isn't a thing to celebrate, then I'm the queen of atlantis. Infidel775 20:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check my userpage for my Angh'vypid creature and come up with a taxon for it, i'm thinking Hemiinsecta but after that a new order would need to be created since it only has three limbs (one foot.) I don't really mind what taxon it is as long as it's correct. Cheers ^ҴїҫэӌҬӈә_{Ѕҥїʐʐɻє} 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Simplifying The Name System

Okay, here's the issue. A lot of people want to use different languages for taxa. The reasons may vary, but in most cases it's because translating into latin can be difficult. Not to mention not everyone speaks the same language; you may be able to read your taxa in french, but I certainly can't. That's where this comes in.

By sheer luck and determination (and yahoo.com) I have found a free online translator. Simply type the text in and choose what languages you are translating from and to, and voila! Turn french to latin or german to japanese or whatever you think is important! Intertran Translator

If this doesn't help I don't now what will.

There's many free online translators. I'd recommend Google translate, generally, as Google has a large base with which to train its translators. morgoth ^t/_C 18:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Morgoth, I didn't see a Latin Hub for the Translator page on the Google Translator, and on Intertran Translator I did a basic one, and I typed in "Bird". In Latin, "Bird" came up. I was expecting "Ave" or at least not "Bird"

--Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs

[edit] 2 Iguanidaes?

Should the Iguanidae be split in 2 for bipedal piscisaurs and quadrepedal piscisaurs? For there are both in the existing family.

I don't think that's necessary. Iguanidae is a family about fish headed creature with lizard-like bodies. It isn't limb-related. OluapPlayer 10:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uh, just a quick question

I noticed that there are a lot of people signed up to the project, do I have to sign up before I start adding my creatures to the taxon, or is it just for those tidying the mess? I've probably overlooked the answer somewhere. Actually there's only one of my creatures i'd consider adding. ^ҴїҫэӌҬӈә_{Ѕҥїʐʐɻє} 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to sign up to help out. This is voluntary. Schnautzr 05:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How do i sign up for the taxonomy project? Sciencematt123 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My creatures

All mine (My spore username is Stuart98) are to have the genus and species names that I gave them (Cella Spika, Cilia Spika, Proba Poisa, Filta Stalka).

Note: Give the creature Fall Ika a random Genus and Species, as my sister told me what to name it.

Remember that the second name in the taxonomy must have small letters. OluapPlayer 10:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh OluapPlayer. Almost every single page I have seen that has a discussion page has had a post from you.

I am everywhere :B OluapPlayer 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy For Spore creatures DS characters and creatures

i mean, we have catalouged all of the real spore creatures, but this game has arclarts and skuthers and pruleepas, i think they should have articles and be catalogued. 159.250.29.4 15:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Spore Creatures is full of Maxis and user created creatures, like the PC game. They could gain taxonomies, and the user created creatures could be in the content mainspace.

Support:

OluapPlayer 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it sounds good, and it'll be fun. I'm all for it. Furby98 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

--Liquid Ink 08:43, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note for future classifications.

{{infobox creature}} supports inclusion of taxonomy classifications, now. Please note this in the future and add your classification there. Also, if some of you could move existing classifications into the infobox, that would be helpful. Thanks. morgoth ^t/_C 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm noticing that the classifier and date are noted in the classifications, just add two fields for now, they'll be implemented later:

|taxonomist = ??? |taxDate = ???

That should work, right? morgoth ^t/_C 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with the date thing. As soon as someone at wikia turns on SMW for the content and taxon namespace (they just need to find someone who knows how to) we can use {{taxon}} to call the taxonomist and/or date from the taxon page. Ose ^t/_c 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ask Will Wright?

How did the wiki manage to get an interview with Will Wright? Because if we can do that, then we can almost certainly just ask his opinion about the whole taxonomy thing. It would be nice to get the opinion from the actual Spore creator.--Shaf Girl 04:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Plantae

Why don't we get the Plant classification running? It would be a huge moral boost to actually "complete" a kingdom. It would just require a little effort and the ~150 plants would be classified in notime. 9401france 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, is wouldn't be very fun or challenging for taxonomists and you can only make user-created plants if you use the bugged version that you can get out the game. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I think that would be pretty awesome to actually know that a taxon is completely finished. The only thing I could possibly see stopping you is that articles of little importance might be deleted, although I'm sure that since they're Maxis creations, they're worth mentioning. I believe that several of the original Sporaquarium species have been deleted from SporeWiki, although I am not sure why. The only existing list of them left (that I know of) can be accessed at the spore.co.uk.

Just make sure that the plantlike animals don't get a Plantae classification.... :) Schnautzr 05:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you created the project as User:PlantTaxonomyProject. This doesn't belong in the userspace, so I moved it (and retitled it for easier reading) to SporeWiki:Plant Taxonomy Project. Hope you don't mind. :)

I also added a link to the project on this project's page, and will add a related projects section on that page as well in just a minute. Schnautzr 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't start classifying plants, for many reasons. First, you can't make plants in game, unless you use the glitch-cheat or whatever thing to use it and make poor quality plants. Second, they aren't worth mentioning because it's hard to make plant taxons anyway: It's like making Monera II, but with harder ways to classify because Spore doesn't include much stuff to classify them by. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait...so your reason for not supporting others work on the project is because you think it's too hard? I think it could be done. Botanists would be great at it, and who knows, maybe there are a few people here who understand botany.

Also, just because there are a limited number is a poor reason...there are 150, which is definitely worth mention. I'd say give whoever thinks they can do it a chance...what's the worst that could happen?

This project didn't just start on its own, it took me coming here and saying, "I need something to do." So I just started doing it, and people joined me after several weeks when they saw the project was sort of neat. I knew there was no way in the world to catalogue each one (which is actually why I was hesitant to do it in the first place, since it would never be finished or even caught up), but it was a fun way to learn and share knowledge. In fact, there was little support at all when I started on it, and I even sensed some resistance.

Anyway, I've done enough damage here, so I'll be leaving now. Schnautzr 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why is there a sub project for 150 plants? We're getting more and more cells, let's just make this page the main thing and combine everything. Also, 9401france started and stopped. I'm fine with anyone classifying Maxis plants, but it sure doesn't need its own project. Monera doesn't have its own project. And when I said Hard, I meant it's hard to tell if a plant is flowering or not because all plants are at the same season, they might not grow fruit, etc, etc. If you want to, that's fine, but there's no point in making a whole new project for 150 plants. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SporeWiki:Taxonomy

Hi, taxonomists of the SporeWiki!

I never thought I'd live to see this project actually get off the ground, but I'm quite impressed! Apparently the 100 or so taxons Neini8 and I put together when I was here were enough to spark interest in several people.

You're all doing an amazing job. Keep up the good work.

I just stopped by to do some research on a flying creature in the 2005 GDC video (decided it must be the untitled winged creature). I noticed I had a new message and responded to it, and it inspired me to check up on this project.

I've done bit of revision to the main project page, which I hope makes sense. Darwin may have been a little off when he noted that species and breeds were no different, but he was absolutely correct when he noted that kingdoms/classes/orders/families/genera/species are no different.

I've also added instructions for determining whether you're describing the original of a species or a clone. The original should be described, as opposed to the "stolen" one, except where the child creation is actually unique in a significant way (perhaps the original merely served as a template). If different, both should be described on separate pages.

I would like to point out that anyone with questions for me needs to email them to me at this link, as I rarely check the SporeWiki. (That means that if you respond to this discussion, I probably won't see it anytime soon unless you email me!)

Enjoy your endeavors! Schnautzr 05:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a split

While i'm not directly involved in classification and such, I try to make this wiki more navigatale and useful. And one of the most important ways to do that, is to split information into several pages (so that people can look up only what they need). Now, this project should in my (experienced, if I may say so) option be laid out as:

• SporeWiki:Taxonomy (SW:TAX) for general information about how the project works

And three different project pages describing the different parts of the project

• SporeWiki:Creature classification project (SW:CREATURE)
• SporeWiki:Cell classification project (SW:CELL)
• SporeWiki:Plant classification project (SW:FLORA)

This way people can look up information about only the part they need. Also note how i've used the words "classification project" instead of "taxonomy" for the three specific pages. Most users do not know what taxonomy is, and may be confused by the project titles, hence the more descriptive names. However that is my opinion and if the general opinion is to stick with "X Taxonomy project" then it will stay so.

When Wikia gets Semantic MediaWiki up and running for the taxon and content namespaces (shouldn't be too long), the system can be enchanced to allow you to fetch information from another page (for example a template can be designed to show the classifier and date of classification of the taxon you specify). Another way to use SMW is to have it automatically generate lists of pages which has a certain semantic value specified (for example, you can tell it to "make me a table which shows me the names, creators and classifiers of all pages in this specific family"). However, this would require you to go over all taxon pages and change them to use {{infobox taxon}} (still in developement) before it would work.

Ose ^t/_c 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all the taxonomy "sub-projects" operated the same way, the only difference being what is being classified, ie. creatures, cells, or plants. It seems to me that the only possible split that might need to happen would be adding sub-categories to "Taxa", ie. "Taxa/Creature", "Taxa/Cell", and "Taxa/Flora". Just my two cents. morgoth ^t/_C 01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no need to have separate classifications. They're just other creations, there is really nothing different. . . Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There still needs to be done something. The signing up is unneccesary and sould in my opinion be removed. I don't think Schnautrz thought this many people would be involved. The main project page should just be a overview of the project, and the guide on how ot classify should be on my subpage. This will simplify things for people looking for specific information. Ose ^t/_c 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This didn't get any answer on the monera page. Should we divide the taxon into Domains and Biota. That would give a place for the cryptians and robotic sporian creatures. It would also make the clasification pages look a bit less trashy. 72.35.126.158 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I created a page on domains, but it was obsolete, so instead there is a section about it on the Taxonomy Project page. Wormulon 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

May I try to make a page? When did you try to do that, anyway? 216.137.225.60 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Same guy as last time. It keepd changing the adress on me. (NO I'M NOT JOINING)

How can I join this project?

--Fedelede 04:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I CREATED MY OWN WIKI! it`s called [2]! Everyone is invited! Im very good reading and in discussion boards, but not in creating articles out of nothing!

And a question... May I do a NewSpore Taxonomy Project? how?

And how can I join this wiki?

--Fedelede 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown taxon

I've posted a few times about this, but haven't had a reply, so I thought i'd post it in a new section and it might get noticed. Anyway, I was wondering if someone could classify my Angh'vypid creature, it's located on my userpage at the mo' and it's only really the taxon that's stopping me from creating its own page. If someone could recommend a class-order-family etc. I thought maybe Hemiinsecta, but a new order may have to be created. I can provide more pics if need be. Cheers. ^ҴїҫэӌҬӈә_{Ѕҥїʐʐɻє} 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, here's a good latin translator for naming creatures.

Well, I created a page for it. Angh'vypid ^ҴїҫэӌҬӈә_{Ѕҥїʐʐɻє} 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put this on here, hopefully someone with C&C can classify it for me. Cheers in advance. ^ҴїҫэӌҬӈә_{Ѕҥїʐʐɻє} 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone mind taxonimizing (or whatever the word would be) my Schlorpite creature. I can't add any pictures, and I don't plan to join. It is the avitar on my spore page. poisson 14/216.137.221.203 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's called "classifying", but I can certainly do it. I have done a large amount of classifying for Sagan IV, which is a bigger project than the Spore Taxonomy Project by at least double currently. Lemme take a look at it and see what I can do. - Somarinoa 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Somarinoa's Species & the Great Conundrum

None of my species belong to the Domain Eukaryota, as it's technically an incorrect way to classify species due to the species evolving on different worlds and thereby not having any relation to each other (unless Earth is the planet seeding all worlds in Spore -- if this is the case, then I suppose certain species of mine would fit into the classifications, although not my major storyline species). That being said, I greatly respect the taxonomy project and want to contribute, and would add species to existent taxa instead of making up new kingdoms and everything for every single species on every single planet...however, none of my species belong in the same kingdoms as listed currently. Does that mean that I cannot add my creatures such as the Aurix (kingdom Neomalia) and others to the project? I certainly wouldn't state that no others could add to my taxa, as the Permitted and likely other species have seeded other worlds with my organisms. If you know me much at all or have known me for quite some time, I am very much a taxonomy guy. What should I do? - Somarinoa 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll...take that as a yes, then? They can always be deleted if it's not okay later, I'm sure, although I would think it'd be allowed since it's a taxonomy thing and blah blah blah blah blah. Probably won't do it immediately, however; I'm busy moving out of my old place. - Somarinoa 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How would I do this?

I am trying to classify my Schlorpite creatures, but I don't know where to classify them. All I can be certain of is that NONE of them have a backbone. Poisson14 05:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Domains

Does anyone have objections to me making a domain article? And also, how about a page like biota, so we can really separate robots, machines and animals? If so, I'll do that in the morning (Alaska Time) Poisson14 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (above). Also, machines = robots = non-classifiable. Ose ^t/_c 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why do we have a taxon for machines and robots? What I meant would have bean something like: Panton, Totus, any other suggestions

• Biota
• Mecha, Abiota, any other suggestions?
• Other (Other taxons that have yet to be needed)

Biota would be split into procariots and eucarriots (excuse my spelling) Mecha/Abiota would be spilt into Taxons as needed. If I don't have an answer by 16:00. I will add it. Poisson14 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I will take the lack of response as a yes. Poisson14 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reallized that I would hve to edit EVERY taxon page. Nevermind. Poisson14 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a page on domains, but it was deleted. Wormulon 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

does anyone know how i can joinSciencematt123 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just add your sig to the page. Wormulon 23:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL the list is gone, just add a taxonomy template to your page. Wormulon 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised too. Just use {{User taxonomy}}. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomise this!

LOL! What are we going to do with Assymetrical creatures, possibly a whole new taxon classification system? Wormulon 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... No. We will probably go the more efficient way and put them into existing taxons. A mammal with a single eye on it's side with three arms on the other and two diffremt legs on the bottom, is still a mammal. We will need to work on some new taxons for creatures that don't fit into already existing taxons, but we do that already anyway. Zagorian ^Comm/_Contrib 22:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There still might be problems - creatures that could not exist before, that can now, as well as body parts that don't match. Wormulon 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So, we'll make new families and orders for them. We don't need another Domain or Kingdom. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to make new taxons soley because they are asymmetrical. Yes, sometimes they may not fit into a taxon, but that already happens right? I don't think that when classifying we should give any care that a creature is asymmetrical. Just classify it normally. Zagorian ^Comm/_Contrib 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asignment

Hi, I'm new to the project could someone give me a simple assignment please?Sciencematt123 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)