Talk:Circumscription (taxonomy)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Circumscription (taxonomy). 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/20050315000926/http://delta-intkey.com:80/angio/www/anacardi.htm to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/anacardi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is just plain wrong
The description of a new taxon is called exactly that, a "description". Someone who names a new taxon is called its "describer". It's conceivable to me that "circumscription" has some technical meaning in botany, but it doesn't have any such meaning in zoology. MayerG (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Pyraloidea
The section on Pyraloidea is just incorrect. Pyralidae and Crambidae are both monophylectic lineages, but that doesn't make the superfamily a paraphyly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.81.163 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That section says exactly the opposite; it says that some taxonomists circumscribe two families even though there is no issue of paraphyly at stake (i.e., there is no obvious need to split into two families). It's an example of the proverbial fixing of something that isn't broken, and presented as such. Dyanega (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, misread on my end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.81.163 (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)