FANDOM


  • Why is reclassifying animals based on a couple parts only OK when my creatures alone are affected?

      Loading editor
    • I don't recall having claimed that. Firstly, as you might recall, I agreed with you when you disputed Dinoman972's placement of creatures will Cell parts into Furiaformes. Secondly, as been stated multiple times, your creatures are not merely "a couple parts" different from each other. They are hugely different in structure; classifying bird-like and dragon-like creatures alongside worms, because they happen to have proboscides attached (no matter where on the body they might be) and have the same colour, is exactly the same principle as what Dinoman972 was using to justify putting complex animals into Furiaforme families.

        Loading editor
    • They only differ in limb number and body form, which stayed as diverse after the reclassification. You called them 'bird-like' and 'dragon-like', when those traits, compared to other furians, are only caused by 2-3 parts

        Loading editor
    • Limb number is a significant difference that is very often the feature that distinguishes different families. Body form is a very significant difference that is what usually distinguishes higher-rank taxa.

      I do now see what you mean by "reclassifying animals based on a couple parts". I do not see why you accuse me of applying this standard only to your creatures. Furthermore, the actual number of parts is irrelevant; it's the effect that it has on the overall body shape that matters.

        Loading editor
    • Still, the variety in furians doesn't decrease at all by ommiting those 2 furians.

        Loading editor
    • If that's the case, then that just means that other Furians need to be reclassified too.

        Loading editor
    • Ghelæ wrote: If that's the case, then that just means that other Furians need to be reclassified too.

      There is nowhere else they fit. And lots of other people make genera for creatures that are related, so I should be allowed that luxury too, especially since all furians look like different weights and limb sizes of eachother, just with a few different parts

        Loading editor
    • If you point me to places where such highly dissimilar creatures are assigned to the same genera, that issue can be rectified (as for your own creations not having elsewhere to fit, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself that the worst-case scenario is to create new taxa for them).

      If you merely want to have a taxonomy that describes the relationships between your creatures, you're perfectly welcome to do that! It should just be kept to your own pages rather than affecting the wiki-spanning taxonomy project.

        Loading editor
    • I think that without enough stuff to classify on (like these furians), the creator (me, in this case), should decide. And I want these in furia, with the other purple-clay-sculpture-looking furians

        Loading editor
    • I've changed the taxon which I introduced to the wiki, and contributed more than 90% of species, to say that furians can have many forms, but all look like thick, purple goo with additional parts

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: I think that without enough stuff to classify on (like these furians), the creator (me, in this case), should decide. And I want these in furia, with the other purple-clay-sculpture-looking furians

      By that logic, I'm perfectly capable of creating a rock with tentacles and classify it as a theropod. If everyone does what he/she wants, this project would be a chaos.

      Look, I have another solution (if you two agree, of course). What if we make Furia an order instead of a taxon? Then we could divide it in families for worm-like Furians, dragon-like Furians, bird-like, plant-like... And all of them (except for the Pathola, which is a cell) would be in the same order while not being too closely related due to morphological differences. Similarly to Stonischia's current state. Furiaformes could just be deleted (the only other family on it doesn't fit in the order at all, so it could be moved or reclassified) or reused as the sister Taxon for Monera we decided to create. Just my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Normally, "I created it so it's my choice" is an absolute rule on the wiki, as long as no rules are broken in the process. So if you want to make your own in-fiction taxonomy for your creatures, not only do I think that would be a great thing to do, I'd also have no right to tell you not to do it. But the taxonomy project isn't your own personal fiction; it's a collaborative effort that has everything to do with connections between different people's creations. You can make a taxon, but you do not own it.

      Once again, you're using a definition - "look[s] like thick, purple goo with additional parts" - that's far too vague to be a family definition, and furthermore you're practically using it as a genus definition. This is what the issue is. Twice you've asserted that I hold a double standard, where I let other people do whatever they like with taxonomy while being overly controlling against you ("only OK when my creatures alone are affected", "lots of other people make genera for creatures that are related"), and in both cases you've failed to back up these accusations with evidence. I can't say I'm particularly swayed by your attempts to appear mistreated.

      As Dinoman972 says, we could make this a higher-rank taxon. Requiring purple colouration is needlessly restrictive if there are creatures highly similar in morphology but differing only by skin pigment, and as far as I can tell "looks like thick goo" is being used to mean little more than "has a body". But I'm sure we can work with the idea. As I said in one edit summary, you might be able to argue in favour of invertebrate taxa that somewhat resemble real taxa, allowing your bird and dragon to avoid going into Chordata.

        Loading editor
    • Furians only ook like thick goo because they have a completely smooth colouration, and don't have short constricted areas. And they are similar, you are just ignoring the similarity because it is not the most common similarity. That is like saying 2 fish with the same shape are entirely different because I normally see different shaped, similar coloured fish together.

        Loading editor
    • Erm, you're the one who's claiming that (very) differently-shaped, but similarly-coloured creatures are more similar than those with similar shapes.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not claiming they are more similar, just that they are just as similar. You are claiming that colour and apparent substance doesn't matter.

        Loading editor
    • I am indeed claiming that. Colour is definitely of minimal importance: unless you ignore everything else, a leech is closer to an earthworm than a crow. And the substance is only "apparent" to you because (I assume) that was your intention in making the creatures; smooth purple skin does not even remotely equate to "goo" in any universal sense.

        Loading editor
    • Find any other taxon with 15 or more members, where you can make the body and limbs of at least 86% of the creatures in it from just one colour of plasticine. Also, the crow example only works if the leech is the only type of worm, and crows only had black, smooth skin.

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: Find any other taxon with 15 or more members, where you can make the body and limbs of at least 86% of the creatures in it from just one colour of plasticine. Also, the crow example only works if the leech is the only type of worm, and crows only had black, smooth skin.

      Maybe I'm wrong, but from that I understood you're now claiming Furia is for the typical super-basic creatures. Or maybe you keep defending the fact that Furians look like goo/. And if that's the case (even though they don't look like goo, unless you compare them to that weird purple goo in Super Mario Odyssey) there happens to be a taxon for creatures seemingly made of clay-like substances: Argillidae. So, you're attempting to keep your creatures in Furia with an argument that actually supports the fact that they belong to a different Taxon instead, and then there is the fact that we suggested a solution to keep them in the taxon and you just ignored it.

        Loading editor
    • Argillidae is for soft, clay-like creatures, not creatures that could be accurately modeled with plasticine. And you can makesome pretty cool stuff out of plasticine.

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: Argillidae is for soft, clay-like creatures, not creatures that could be accurately modeled with plasticine. And you can makesome pretty cool stuff out of plasticine.

      Then you are bringing up an argument that claims that every single thing that has ever existed fits in Furia, once again. Also, the description says "clay-like body", not "clay-made body", and you keep claiming Furians have a body that looks like goo, so...

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote:

      Opdagon wrote: Argillidae is for soft, clay-like creatures, not creatures that could be accurately modeled with plasticine. And you can makesome pretty cool stuff out of plasticine.

      Then you are bringing up an argument that claims that every single thing that has ever existed fits in Furia, once again. Also, the description says "clay-like body", not "clay-made body", and you keep claiming Furians have a body that looks like goo, so...

      Argillids are clay-like in texture, whereas furians are clay-like only in appearance

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: Find any other taxon with 15 or more members, where you can make the body and limbs of at least 86% of the creatures in it from just one colour of plasticine.

      Why should I be impressed by your ability to make large quantities of creatures with the same paint scheme?

      Opdagon wrote: Also, the crow example only works if the leech is the only type of worm, and crows only had black, smooth skin.

      If you prefer, you could instead go for leeches and, say, black-skinned salamanders. They have smooth skin, and are no less worm-like than several of your furians, save for features that aren't applicable to the Creature Editor such as internal anatomy.

        Loading editor
    • Ghelæ wrote: Why should I be impressed by your ability to make large quantities of creatures with the same paint scheme?

      When did I say you should be impressed? I'm jst showing you that the furians are all similar in a way that doesn't need extra suppliment. They all share some body features, like no neck, no integument, proboscides, and non-round bodies.

        Loading editor
    • The presence of proboscides isn't a valid criterion: remember that you have argued against defining taxa (e.g. Foliazoa, Cirruosidae) on the grounds of whether they have a particular type of part without regards for the creature's overall appearance.

      Lack of roundness and absence of neck are defining what features they don't have, not something that they share. That's only useful when the majority of creatures in the parent taxon have such a feature, and a small minority need to be differentiated from them.

      That leaves the choice of integument, which as discussed before is insufficient to define a family.

      On top of this, they also have many differences, including different numbers of legs, different numbers of arms, different numbers of wings, different numbers of eyes, and different types of primary mouthparts. In any other family this would be grounds for splitting.

        Loading editor
    • Primary mouthparts is not based on morphology. Being elongated and having a head and body smoothly go into eachother are traits they share. Most of chordata's classes are defined by integument. And I can easily throw your other argument against many other taxons. For the differences, if you can collapse deuterostomia into a family with each of those differences, then I can keep furian how it is now, with all furians.

        Loading editor
    • When did Deuterostomia get collapsed? As far as I know, it's members got reclassified in other taxons. The Xenodon I had classified was moved from Vermoides to Agnathasauridae, your Plant-fish was moved into one of Phytomorpha's families, etc. I don't know about the others, but I guess they were separated as well.

      Also, the Hydra and the Pathola are not elongated (at least when it comes to the body itself).

        Loading editor
    • Also, the Hydra and the Pathola are not elongated (at least when it comes to the body itself).

      They are longer than a rugby ball.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, integument - texture, not colour - defines chordate taxa. Classes, not individual families.

      And if the general body plan you described were that of elongated creatures (as both I and Dinoman972 have pointed out, it isn't, except for an excessively inclusive definition of "elongated" which includes everything from barely "longer than a rugby ball" to extremely thin and serpentine), that could also define a taxon. As it does with Vermes. Which is a class.

      Primary mouthparts aren't the most important features, no. But they are often used as criteria for separating families (as in the various chordate families which are defined as having mouthparts that aren't typical for their class).

      All of your points support that Furia's description is, at best, that of a higher-level taxon, and its species should be split out across different families.

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote:

      Also, the Hydra and the Pathola are not elongated (at least when it comes to the body itself).

      They are longer than a rugby ball.

      There is a difference between long and elongated. "Long" refers to size overall, while "elongated" means it's length is high compared to its width. And maybe they're elongated in your fiction, but the creatures themselves aren't that elongated (again, fiction matters nothing in classification). Neither is the Speedsucker (which happens to be a cell like the Pathola and, as such, is incapable of sharing taxon with actual creatures). Also, weren't all Furians supposed to be microscopic or something?

        Loading editor
    • Also, being more elongated than a rugby ball isn't that much. At least comparing with other Furians.

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote:

      Opdagon wrote:

      Also, the Hydra and the Pathola are not elongated (at least when it comes to the body itself).

      They are longer than a rugby ball.

      There is a difference between long and elongated. "Long" refers to size overall, while "elongated" means it's length is high compared to its width. And maybe they're elongated in your fiction, but the creatures themselves aren't that elongated (again, fiction matters nothing in classification). Neither is the Speedsucker (which happens to be a cell like the Pathola and, as such, is incapable of sharing taxon with actual creatures). Also, weren't all Furians supposed to be microscopic or something?

      They aren't ball-shaped, making them elongated in a way. And they aren't all microscopic, some are the size of small whales.

        Loading editor
    • Ghelæ wrote: All of your points support that Furia's description is, at best, that of a higher-level taxon, and its species should be split out across different families.

      The current classification and structure doesn't support a largers system where the furians are more related to eachother than to anything else, and the enhaims are sister to the furians

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: They aren't ball-shaped, making them elongated in a way.

      So, once again, you claim that nearly every single thing fits in Furia.

      This discussion no longer makes sense at all. I already proposed an idea that doesn't reclassify every single Furian. It just turns the family in an order and puts some families inside to separate them. As simple as that. No significant description changes at all. And all non-cell Furians are together in the same order. We've already explained why they can't share a genus. Most other things we've talked about are just random trivia about them. Could you please, Opdagon, tell us what do you think it's wrong with this idea? And sorry if I offended you or Ghelae in any way.

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote:

      Opdagon wrote: They aren't ball-shaped, making them elongated in a way.

      So, once again, you claim that nearly every single thing fits in Furia.

      So, once again, you claim that I'm creating a new definition when I'm just stating a shared trait. The problem is that the current taxon systems don't support a larger furia that displays furia's united colour scheme, and the enhaim's similarity.

        Loading editor
    • The only enhaim fits in Digitannelidae: elongated body (Vermes), with limbs (Podoannelida), including hands (Digitannelidae). Yes, it has a different-looking larva, which has cell parts, but that's not enough to put it into an entirely different class.

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote:

      Ghelæ wrote: All of your points support that Furia's description is, at best, that of a higher-level taxon, and its species should be split out across different families.

      The current classification and structure doesn't support a largers system where the furians are more related to eachother than to anything else, and the enhaims are sister to the furians

      There is only one enhaim, and only the larvae looks like a cell. Also, by the looks, it could perfectly be an ichthyostegalian or even a kharavasaur.

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote:

      Opdagon wrote:

      Ghelæ wrote: All of your points support that Furia's description is, at best, that of a higher-level taxon, and its species should be split out across different families.

      The current classification and structure doesn't support a largers system where the furians are more related to eachother than to anything else, and the enhaims are sister to the furians

      There is only one enhaim, and only the larvae looks like a cell. Also, by the looks, it could perfectly be an ichthyostegalian or even a kharavasaur.

      Or an annelid, like Ghelae said

        Loading editor
    • The bloodworm is now more cell-like

        Loading editor
    • Right. So let's see where we're at now. You've said that the reason you don't want to split up Furia is because you think they're all more similar to each other than they are to the bloodworm, but the taxonomy system doesn't allow anything between families and orders and both furians and bloodworms fit into the same order. Is that correct?

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: The bloodworm is now more cell-like

      What was the point in making it more cell-like all of a sudden? See, I think this is no longer a problem with the taxonomy rules themselves, but with you being stubborn about Furia's state. Fixing your classifications doesn't mean the end of the world or anything. They can be as Furian as you want inside your fiction universe, but you can't make a taxon in the collaborative Taxonomy project and control every single change on it so it's just like as you want it to be. Taxons don't belong to you. They belong to the project.

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote:

      Opdagon wrote: The bloodworm is now more cell-like

      What was the point in making it more cell-like all of a sudden?

      To make it unique enough to deserve its own taxon. I only realised now. I've been trying to get all of aristotle's taxons on the wiki. It just happened to avoid some of the support for furia as a family going away

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: To make it unique enough to deserve its own taxon. I only realised now. I've been trying to get all of aristotle's taxons on the wiki. It just happened to avoid some of the support for furia as a family going away

      "Just happened"? Sorry if I offend you, but it looks very intentional to me. And why should all of Aristotle's old taxons have a counterpart in the wiki? Sure, it's a nice detail, but it doesn't help the project very much (even less considering the fact that you used Enhaima, which was supossed to include all vertebrates, for a single cell-like invertebrate). And what does it have to do with Furia? As far as I know, you were the one who created that taxon, not Aristotle.

      Again, what are your reasons for not wanting Furia to become an order? And don't come up again with arguments such as "they are evolutionarily related", "they all have purple gooish skin", "they all have a proboscis" or anything else Ghelae and I already proved wrong or unsufficent. I just want to end this conflict once and for all in a way that everybody is at least a bit satisfied. If you tell us your true reasons to keep defending a shared genus for cells and dragons after all of this, maybe we can get to an agreement.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, lets seperate it.

        Loading editor
    • i'LL seperate it. Then you can see if its good

        Loading editor
    • Oh, OK

        Loading editor
    • Well, many things seem to be OK. However, some genus division might be required, Microfuria's integrants are still cells, and Ostracofuria is completely based on fiction-wise information instead of creature morphology. There are some things to fix, but it's a good start.

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote: Ostracofuria is completely based on fiction-wise information instead of creature morphology. There are some things to fix, but it's a good start.

      So, how is the type of foot fiction-wise and not morphology?

        Loading editor
    • Opdagon wrote: So, how is the type of foot fiction-wise and not morphology?

      The description said "hard-skinned", not "insect-footed".

        Loading editor
    • Dinoman972 wrote:

      Opdagon wrote: So, how is the type of foot fiction-wise and not morphology?

      The description said "hard-skinned", not "insect-footed".

      They have hard skin on their foot, unlike all other furians

        Loading editor
    • You could have specified.

      Also, "limbed furiaformes" is too general, as many of them have limbs while looking very different.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.