Talk:Amphibia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae

"In the 10th edition ..."
Does it make sense, to quote from the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (1758) by using an Englsh version of 1800, "Translated from GMELIN'S last Edition of the Celebrated SYSTEMA NATURAE, ... AMENDED AND ENLARGED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS AND DISCOVERIES OF LATER NATURALISTS AND SOCIETIES, ... By William Turton? And to not even quote Turton correctly?

Original Newton from the 10th and 12th edition: "AMPHIBIA, pleraque horrent Corpore frigido, Colore lurido, Sceleto cartilagineo,Vita tenaci, Cute foeda, Facie torva, Obtutu meditabundo, Odore tetro, Sono rauco, Loco squalido, Veneno horrendo; non itaque in horum numerum sese jactavit eorum Auctor." Systema naturae per regna tria naturae. Editio decima, reformata. Stockholm 1758. p. 194 archive.org. Editio duodecima, reformata. Stockholm 1766. p. 347 books.google.

And where in Turton's edition are the Linnaean Characteristics quoted? On [http://books.google.de/books?id=PXMQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4. page 4] there are neither heart nor lungs and "support" is "supporters". The original Linné however has cor and pulmones: 12th edition page 19 books.google. --Vsop.de (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Nantes" from the Amphibia section be moved to Pisces?
Linnaeus later moved the creatures previously under "Nantes" into Pisces as "Chondropterygii". Shouldn't we reflect that in the article? Titanopteran (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)