Talk:Genus

Platypus
this explains why the platypus is called Ornithorhynchus.

As somebody reasonably well-educated on the subject of biology and taxonomy, this statement is false. I have no idea what the preceding paragraph has to do with the platypus. Can anybody either use a different example or explain why--I can't see a logical connection at all. User:Tokerboy — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 2 October 2002 (UTC)

This annoyed me for a couple days because it seemed nonsensical. Then I got the bright idea to check the platypus article, and sure enough it was explained there. I added the info to this page. Tokerboy 19:43 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

Can species in a Genus Mate?
I remember from my Biology class in grade 12 that certain species could mate in a genus. For example, this is why it was theorized that human and neanderthalers may have mated in Europe -- a theory which has since been disproven. But I do know that in Toronto...a Lioness and a Leopard naturally mated together []. So can a two species of the same genus actually breed together? Or does it depend upon what particular genus and species we are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.139.155 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on which genus and which subspecies. Most members of genus Canis (canines: dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos) can interbreed with fertile offspring (I know of no exceptions personally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.141.146 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "genus" really mean?
This article does not really explain what makes a genus a genus; it just circulates around a definition. What differences make a genus distinct from another? MrBenzpyrene 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing can make any group a genus. It is just a convention established by experts in a particular field of taxonomy. The mechanisms involved in establishing a particular convention are too tricky to be explained in a nutshell but some rational framework for the discussions was provided by cladistics in the 1970s. Of course, the principles of cladistics are more, actually, guidelines :) Seriously, there is no imaginable justification for ascribing any rank in taxonomic hierarchy (except for species, which is a bit less arbitrary). It has a lot to do with nomenclature (the rules of naming) and nothing to do with some real natural entities of a generic quality. Alexei Kouprianov 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article could at least include that information. If a genus cannot be easily defined in a short space, at least some indication of what it is and isn't would be helpful, or something to narrow the definition more than no definition at all. Rintrah 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only solution is to extend a historical section, which is virtually absent now. I'll see what I can do about that. Alexei Kouprianov 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms "generic" and "specific" are derived from the same cognates as "genus" and "species". This gives us a vital etymological clue as to the original distinction. The sciences of genetics and skeletal measurement have blurred any rigid categorization. --205.201.141.146 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article, and this question in particular would benefit from including some examples of genera, such as that of Canis, which was mentioned in another question. Downstrike (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a new section on the size of genera and how their content is defined. It's actually somewhat arbitrary. Otherwise it really depends on the taxonomic group, but I did give some examples. Peteruetz (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Structure/Technical
I think this article is widely different from the other taxonomy articles, and may be a bit too technical. I don't feel qualified to rewrite it myself, but I felt it was worth noting. Mister.Manticore 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A Re-write
I made a first attempt this morning to substantially rework and re-order this article, especially the first few paragraphs. I thought that the first sections in particular were poorly put-together, opaque, and hard to follow. Invertzoo 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it classified?
What are they classififed within? The Kingdom classification is classifed by general apperance and behavioral atributes. What about genus? How is it classified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.43.48 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How many genera?
The article doesn't say how many recognised genera there are among living creatures. Tsinfandel (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added some numbers for reptiles. Otherwise no one has ever counted all genera. No one even knows the total number of species, although the Catalogue of Life has produced a list of some 1.5 million species. However, there are certainly many more, even in the scientific literature. Peteruetz (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a new section "Numbers" which attempts to deal with this question in a preliminary manner, including a broad breakdown of "accepted, extant" names by major taxonomic group. Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have updated this section (now "Numbers of accepted genera") according to a recently published summary (Rees et al., 2020). Tony 1212 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hayatiyat
What is the meant by three types of genus 111.119.183.47 (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)