Exobiology Classification

[roguebfl]

I Want to to come up with a way to classify exobiology especial, such that calling a xenobiology created a 'Parrot' or a 'Bear' isn't nonsense in the setting.

I was thinking of taking the existing scientific names for earth's creatures and pretending 'terra' to the name, than each world would get it's own root, but bellow the root if they share the characteristics of an eathar chrater they get same subname.

The system would problem need some notation for created than been genetically modified to either be adapt to a world, or used to terraform a world

[RyanW]

If they are earthly organisms modified to live on another planet, their scientific name would probably just either be appended with a subspecies name or replaced new (but probably related) species name. You might see things like "Triticum aestivum ares" (Martian wheat) and "Canis sapiens" (thinking dog). These names may be established by either scientists or marketing consultants.

If it is life completely unrelated to earthly life (either an alien or completely artificial genome), it's anyone's guess. But you'll probably still get popular literature doing stupid things like "Homo klingonis".

[whswhs]

I'm not sure what you're aiming at with this. Are the extraterrestrial species supposed to be genetically modified organisms of terrestrial ancestry? Or are they supposed to have evolved on alien planets?

If the latter, I don't see any particular reason to believe that they'll parallel terrestrial lifeforms closely enough to be called something like "bear" or "oak" or "mushroom." It might be like trying to pick out a particular insect or fish or oceanic life form that you were going to call a "bear."

And suppose there were close parallels? There are five independently evolved groups of anteating mammals—anteaters in South America, aardvarks in South Africa, pangolins in Madagascar, and echidnas and numbats in Australia—but we don't say "Americamyrmecophagus" and "Africamyrmecophagus" and so on: each genus has its own distinctive name. Trying to assimilate them would tend to confuse functional similarity with descent—but descent is the gold standard of biology.

True, there are purely functional terms, like "herbivore" and "parasite." But words like "bird" and "insect" and "rodent" are not functional; they're descent-based. The two vocabularies are not interchangeable—not even when a word can be used as both, like "carnivore" as an animal that eats other animals and "carnivore" as a member of the mammalian order Carnivora. (Maybe we should have stuck with Linnaeus's name for them, Ferae.)

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure what you're aiming at with this. Are the extraterrestrial species supposed to be genetically modified organisms of terrestrial ancestry? Or are they supposed to have evolved on alien planets?

The setting has both. But the setting also assumes similar evolutionary force can, and will produce simulacra adaptations.

The point is I want to my setting to have people reasonable call alien species that if it's skeleton was found by archeologist on earth that it appears to be a feline, then it's a feline, however at the same time not it's not actual descended from Terran stock or not.

RyanW your idea might work Terra triticum aestivum ares would have the common name of Martian Wheat, but a scientfic name of and adbatied species.

But Pern Urticaceae moudias̱ , Would be 'Pernese Numbweed'
but if it been addabed to grow on eather then it would be Pern Urticaceae moudias̱ terra i guess

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

True, there are purely functional terms, like "herbivore" and "parasite." But words like "bird" and "insect" and "rodent" are not functional; they're descent-based. The two vocabularies are not interchangeable—not even when a word can be used as both, like "carnivore" as an animal that eats other animals and "carnivore" as a member of the mammalian order Carnivora. (Maybe we should have stuck with Linnaeus's name for them, Ferae.)

Well, there are quite a few functional ones. Quadrupeds, bipeds. Warmbloods. Protozoa. Algae. Alternaria. And of course sapients.

I'm guessing these would be more relevant for biochemical/ecological groupings, kinda like the Lensmen species types.

[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.

[roguebfl]

It also allow me to using terms like felianoid or Avinod when described a new species without have the characters sound like human-centriest.

[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 roguebfl

It also allow me to using terms like felianoid or Avinod when described a new species without have the characters sound like human-centriest.

That's popular in Space Opera, but absolutely silly for harder science fiction where well thought out xenobiology tends to reside.