SporeWiki talk:Taxonomy

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)

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! 75.16.253.32 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)

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? Oset&bull;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)

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)

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. 75.16.253.32 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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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.  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

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