Exobiology Classification

[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. ;)

[malloyd]

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.

This has basically already happened. Naming and classifying organisms on the basis of what they look like is considered flat out wrong in biology these days, which makes what the OP wants sound silly. Average people might well use names that can cover similar looking or behaving things from several independent evolutionary lines. Xenologists will not.

I think what may be needed here given the assumed parallelism are names for ecological niches. We don't currently have any of those, you'll have to make them up. Though the fact there is no word, common or technical, for say "flying carnivore of small flying things" that covers the multiple kinds of birds, bats, dragonflies (and presumably pterosaurs) that have filled that niche, and the ease with which even amateur observers can tell them apart, sort of suggests the core premise that evolutionary parallelism forces anything in similar niches to be so similar a single name makes sense is not working here on Earth.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by malloyd

This has basically already happened.

Yeah, that's my point.

[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.

[jeff_wilson]

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.

Skip some syllables and try felids and poulids, as the alt-universe-exploring biologists in Bear's LEGACY do.

[whswhs]

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.

Using earth names already sounds humanocentric.

Bill Stoddard