Some questions about classifications...

Hello, I am thinking of putting together a classification system for marine life (both plant and animal) and wonder what others (more experienced in the field) would think of it.

I have everything classified down to the class level, (eg: urochordata (tunicates)) and was going to have people add the individual species which they see on particular dives (and thus create a searchable database of dive-locations linked with the *special* marine life that is present in the area).

Does that sound like a good idea? I am also not sure how much knowledge other divers have about the classification system... (I am from a Biology background ut: so np for me!). I guess it would also require the common names? as well as a brief description?

thanks,
Chris

Definately use common names, with scientific name in parenthesis maybe. Most people are just confused by the classification system.

Photos are also very important for identification. I think allowing people to add fish sightings is a good idea. Guess there's reason someone would falsify a sighting, huh?

Scientific names are infinitley better than local names. since I started in marine fishkeeping it became clear to mr the huge advantages of scientific names.

I have a fish in my tank, a cryptocentrus leptocephalus. this thing has six or more common names. Luther goby, Pink spotted shrimp goby, plenty of others. Withiut scientific names it's impossible for people to talk aout the same fish if it's located in a different ocean.

as divers we should seek to learn about the marine life we interact with common names lead to a huge amount of confusion.

for your project I would reccomend grouping fishes and other organisms by htier body charachteristics and then scientific familys.

how many of you think the name of that fish you're fed is Mahi-Mahi? Well that's a Hawaiian name so if you're not is hawaii, the name is dolphin. Same fish. Coryphaena hippurus. I agree it's a little easier to remember common names, but it's brain rot getting to ya.

HTH, Rice

Scientific name(s) followed by a list of common names will probably work best, especially if you plan to make it a searchable list. That way someone can type in the common name and get the scientific name, which will help them get more information about the critter from technical sites.
Might also want to list older scientific names - stuff does get reclassified. Even common stuff (the best example of this that comes to mind right now is freshwater: new Oncorhynchus mykiss versus old Salmo gardneri for rainbow trout)
Classification should include the technical diagnostic features of the taxon as well as field identification features wherever possible (after all, a post-fetal human lacks 2 of the 3 "chordate" defining characteristics).

As you're a biologist, I assume you're already aware that this is going to be one massive project, right?
BTW - since when is Urochordata a class? Thought it was it's own subphylum. Did they <groan> change it *again* (used to be a seperate phylum) when I wasn't looking? ;-)

Oh yes... I may have made a mistake there.... Don't have my books on hand to check at the moment so I will take your word for it .

I guess the most straightforward way is to use the scientific names, with common names as a secondary lookup source. I like your suggestion Rice, about putting in their morphological characteristics as well... As it stands I have brief descriptions of each of the categories (class, phylum, sub- ... whatever ) which is also searchable, but not terribly easily as everything is listed in one description and there is no inheritance. What you are thinking of, I think, is a Linneaus Key (where you go through a checklist of the organism's features and end up with the correct classification). Creating one of those, online, is an idea I have been bouncing around for a couple of years actually... the main problem (other than actually getting the data in) is copyright infringement --the info is in books, but the books are not free.:huh:

also: I just spoke to someone in the fisheries (West Coast of Canada) department who thought it was a good idea. She suggested that I get pictures in there so that the database could conceivably be used as a monitor of trends over time.... (as the organisms will be linked with a dive location at a particular depth/date.)

cheers,
Chris

OMG ;-0

that sounds like a lot of work. If bob101 has his ways, i'm not
going to have much of a life!

cheers

What makes you think that it needs to be done again? This isn't a flame or anything, just a question.

What I mean is that every living critter has already been classified from kingdom down. If anything, the best thing would be to just compile stuff into affordable reference books.

As a biologist and aspiring taxonomist, I agree that scientific names are a necessity, with perhaps a few common names in parantheses.

Just some thoughts...

I once had the goal of photographing every living organism big enough to be photographed in the North Umpqua River system in Oregon. A zoologist friend looked at me quizzically, and said it was probably impossible. I tried, and in 20 years have now got a pretty good collection, but between job and raising a family, I have maybe a percent or two of the available animals, and a few plants. So try to do something that is doable, is my advise.

What I think would be helpful to many is a key, based on the latest scientific categories (kingdom, phylum, (subphylum?), Family, Genus, Specie) that would be hyperlinked so that someone could potentially key the organism that they were interested in, and find the animal. One thought is that perhaps some of this already resides in some of the world's universities, and only needs to be linked up to be useful. In other words, perhaps some of the zoology departments have already developed good, accessible keys for some phylum (phylua?? I'm doing this from memory), and all you would have to do is to hyperlink into their database.

Good luck.

SeaRat

Sounds like a lot of work.

Here is a link to a site that is listing fish. Fish Information Finder

Pez de Diablo once bubbled...
Sounds like a lot of work.

Here is a link to a site that is listing fish. Fish Information Finder

Click to expand...

Umm, Pez - I think that link is just for reef *tank* fish (and some FW ones)...

Where's the muskies? Salmonids? or did you mean this to be an example of how to do the sorting?