Talk:Vermes in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae

Unfair judgement

 * "The class Vermes, as Linnaeus conceived it, was a rather diverse and mismatched grouping of animals; basically it served as a wastebasket taxon for any invertebrate species that was not an arthropod."

That remark is rather unfair. First, there was no theory of evolution in Linnaeus' days, so he couldn't have known whether or not these animals were related. Today we explain their superficial similarities by shared archaisms; Linnaeus, who must have implicitly assumed that all animals came about at roughly the same time, surely had no such notion. Second, the group may have been rather diverse, but think about how diverse the other classes were. Mammalia contained animals as seemingly unrelated as shrews, whales, and horses, Amphibia contained snakes, turtles, and frogs (which, of course, was also wrong, but that's not the point). All together, I think it's wrong to call Linnaeus' Vermes a wastebasket taxon, because he had grounded reasons to have it that way and did not do it for the sake of convenience. Steinbach (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Vermes in the 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 tag to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/List+of+leeches+recorded+in+the+Czech+Republic?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=List+of+leeches+recorded+in+the+Czech+Republic&sa=Search#922
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304090046/http://data.gbif.org/species/13870254 to http://data.gbif.org/species/13870254

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) 19:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)