Exobiology Classification

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I wouldn't expect xenobiologists to even use Linnean taxonomy, it's becoming less and less useful even on Earth. If I could do taxonomy over again I'd base it on cladistics and genetics and not on superficial phenotypical features in the first place.

That would make sense only for scientific experts. While the vast majority of humanity would stick to the more "useful" day to day language and that wonderfully vague middle ground of educated layman.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That would make sense only for scientific experts. While the vast majority of humanity would stick to the more "useful" day to day language and that wonderfully vague middle ground of educated layman.

Ordinary people use common names and not Linnean binomial nomenclature anyway.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Ordinary people use common names and not Linnean binomial nomenclature anyway.

No one uses Homo Sapiens, mammal, ursine, porcine, or cetacean? I did mention the vague middle ground between "That thar's an anteater.", and "That's a mammalia xenarthra pilosa vermilingua..."

Though that does go back to anything remotely similar looking to a known animal will get called something similar regardless of how absurd it may be scientifically. Large slow moving shelled grazing heterotrophs will get called land crabs or tortoises even if they are blue with 16 eyes, 6 legs, and spit gastric acid when annoyed.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No one uses Homo Sapiens, mammal, ursine, porcine, or cetacean?

Why wouldn't people be able to use my hypothetical xeno-taxonmy instead? It doesn't matter how the names are derived, does it?

[Flyndaran]

I edited my post after thinking for a moment. You're just too fast to respond. ;)

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why wouldn't people be able to use my hypothetical xeno-taxonmy instead? It doesn't matter how the names are derived, does it?

While your proposal has a lot of since, it lacks one key feature. The ability to look up an existing fauna or flora name and tweak it to have a name an educated layman can make stab at being in the right ball park for your fictional example.

For example I have an upcoming instance where I want to make xenology mention of a native bird that has many of characteristics of a Kea, a highly integument (but NOT sapient), omnivorous, alpine parrot, with the same issue of 'cheekyness'

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

While your proposal has a lot of since, it lacks one key feature. The ability to look up an existing fauna or flora name and tweak it to have a name an educated layman can make stab at being in the right ball park for your fictional example.

For example I have an upcoming instance where I want to make xenology mention of a native bird that has many of characteristics of a Kea, a highly integument, but NOT sapient omnivorous alpine parrot, with the same issue of 'cheekyness'

In a setting with such unrealistic space opera aliens it doesn't really matter. In that case using the same taxonomy as Earth is no less silly than the entire premise is to begin with.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

For example I have an upcoming instance where I want to make xenology mention of a native bird that has many of characteristics of a Kea, a highly integument, but NOT sapient omnivorous alpine parrot, with the same issue of 'cheekyness'

When we do these kind of things across genuses here on Earth they often get name particles such as para- or -morphia.