 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Organization Needed edit
The present organization of this page allows no path for readers interested in, e.g., the North American clade to follow up. The article, in effect, says that the old Genus / species taxonomic organization has been judged inadequate and has been replaced by the higher-res "tribe" and "clade" organization — but then fails to provide links to follow up on this — and then proceeds to provide only links to genera.
This may make sense to those writing the articles, but is opaque to those reading them. rowley (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting, but the article could certainly be expanded quite a bit, including a lot more discussion of what is in the North American clade and so on. To some extent, whether this is practical depends on how much of a scientific consensus there is. When a classification gets rearranged as fundamentally as this one, it usually takes a fair bit of time from different researchers to place all the species (there are 2,800 of them). Kingdon (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)