Talk:Dichotomous Key

This is a cool book. You might want to consider inserting __NOTOC__ to suppress of the automatic table of contents on pages like Dichotomous Key:Hexapoda (just place __NOTOC__ as the very last line of the page, as I've done it on that page). --Andreas 10:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MOOOOO O O

Regarding the difficulty in going from start to dog, little can be done about it, really. The higher taxa like Chordata, for example, are distinguished by technical characteristics that may be difficult or impossible for most people to describe. I've been kicking around in my head some ideas about having alternate keys. For example, next to Animalia#5, there could be a separate key leading either to a new section or new page that would use more easily identifiable characteristics. The problem is that, especially in the higher taxa, the only really good characteristics are difficult for laymen to identify -- if there was an alternate key of some sort, it would be much more complicated to make because there would be numerous exceptions and caveats.

FTR, dogs are deuterostomes. Also, they have a notochord. Once you get that far (this would take you to Dichotomous Key:Chordata), the rest of the keys you should be able to follow without too much difficulty. (nobody's done the Dichotomous Key:Canidae yet, so you won't actually be able to get all the way down to the dog -- unfortunately, I don't think there are any very familiar animals done all the way to species yet) TUF-KAT 15:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is now a familiar species that can be traced all the way from start to finish -- humans. Like dogs, they (we) are deuterostomes and they have a notochord. You also have to be able to count molar cusps to get all the way to the end, but the rest of it should be easy to follow. TUF-KAT 17:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I should probably mention here that I have proposed moving the Dichotomous Key (and Field Guide) to Wikispecies, because it seems likely to get more attention from knowledgeable people there, and it fits in well with that project's scope. Nobody at the Wikispecies Village Pump has replied, so I'm not going to do it in the immediate future, but I think it will happen sooner or later. TUF-KAT 18:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer. I think the way you implemented the glossary on Dichotomous Key:Mammalia is the most useful and intuitive way. It would be sad to loose a good book from Wikibooks, but it definitely looks like there is more connection with Wikispecies. Anyhow, this book will profit from tight linking to both Wikipedia and Wikispecies. What you should demand as soon as possible (even if you decide to move your book later), is to have a prominent link to your book, possibly even on the main page of Wikispecies. This might also draw experts' attention to this wikibook.

Another suggestion (from the naive novice?): I don't know if it is a good idea, but it might be helpful for some questions (like the one which opening develops first) to have a few well-known examples that would follow later down the road (e.g. "Deuterostomes (containing e.g. dogs)"). That could help sometimes in pointing to the right direction at least... --Andreas 04:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've been considering ways to incorporate something along the lines of your suggestion. I'll see what I can come up with. TUF-KAT

Would this book be interested in this page? Please move it into this book or mark it for deletion if it is not needed. Thanks, hagindaz 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have found a number of unused templates that seem to deal with this wikibook. Let me know if any of these are still useful:

• Template:Animalia
• Template:Arthropoda
• Template:Aves
• Template:Carnivora
• Template:Hexapoda
• Template:Mammalia glossary
• Template:Mollusca
• Template:Reptilia
• Template:Ursidae

There may be more, but I can't find any others. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Each of these seems to have been older versions of the currently used ones. Since these were deprecated and unused, adding in no meaningful way to any module, this book or the wikibooks project as a whole, I've speedy deleted them on grounds of no meaningful content. --Swift (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I Think that illustrations could be a big improvement. If any question will be followed with image of the choice it could be much simplier to the novice user. 192.115.235.2 12:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a large number of templates used in this book. Special:AllPages/K gives:

• Template:K
• Template:KD
• Template:KDC
• Template:KDCO
• Template:KDCOF
• Template:KP
• Template:KPC
• Template:KPCO
• Template:KPCOF
• Template:KPCsubcO
• Template:KPCsubcsuperoO
• Template:KPCsubcsuperoOsuboF
• Template:KPsp
• Template:KPspC
• Template:KPspCO
• Template:KPspCOso
• Template:KPsubp
• Template:KPsubpC
• Template:KPsubpCO
• Template:KPsubpCOsubo
• Template:KPsubpCsubc
• Template:KPsubpCsubcO
• Template:KPsubpCsubcOsubo
• Template:KPsubpCsubcOsuboF
• Template:KPsubpCsubcOsuboinfraounrankedsuperf
• Template:KPsubpCsubcOsuboinfraounrankedsuperfF
• Template:KPsubpCsubcOsuboinfraounrankedsuperfFsubf
• Template:KPsubpCsubcsupero
• Template:KPsubpCsubcsuperoO

These should at the very least be categorised and even consolidated. Anyone up for writing a little description of what each of these does? --Swift (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are several animals listed under Animalia > 2 legs that are completely incorrect.

The only items that would fit here are "Birds" and "Other", although some amphibians only have two legs, or two legs and two vestigial legs.

That is correct, however, the purpose of the key at this point is to narrow down the possibilities. "number of legs" in itself is not a very descriptive term, but it is one that even the most amateur of biologists can observe. So many creatures undergo metamorphosis, such as amphibians and many arthropods, that every possibility must be considered. If you'll notice, there are some categories listed under both "2 legs" and "4 legs", in an attempt to simply narrow down the huge number of animals there are to choose from, including their various forms.

An additional reason for this is that, although it is incorrect, if someone looks at an amphibian and thinks "it has two arms and two legs", amphibians will still be a choice. If it is even remotely ambiguous, it is included under both. More specific features will be used in later parts of the key.Sesamehoneytart (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

we could format it as a series diagrams in a page and all they would have to do is follow the diagram and ask simple questions, thus redusing the number of pages. also maybe have domain separate from kingdoms. the last thing i noticed is their are no definitions and to many of the questions are to specific e.g. is it a frog/shark/mammal.The point of this is to identify these thingsDucklan (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply