Talk:10th edition of Systema Naturae

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 10th edition of Systema Naturae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307132150/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=638877 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=638877

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Excessive detail in the sub-articles on each kingdom?
The articles
 * Mammalia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
 * Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
 * Amphibia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
 * Pisces in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,
 * Insecta in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, and
 * Vermes in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae

all include extensive lists of binomial names, wikilinked to the corresponding species. I can't read Latin, but I took a look at the BHL link, and it seems to me that these lists effectively copy/translate the book, in a manner that seems more appropriate at (say) WikiSource.

I do think there's probably enough secondary literature to maintain pages for each kingdom, and we should probably mention some of the ways in which Linn&eacute;'s initial taxonomy differs from the modern in each kingdom. But does it make sense to mention in this encyclopedia each and every species Linn&eacute; listed? Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lists are not appropriate in the sub-articles. There's a case for a separate list article with subsections, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)