Talk:Wastebasket taxon

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paraphyletic?[edit]

Are these generally paraphyletic? - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed "paraphyletic" is a good hint for expanding this somewhat crabbed and ungenerous stub. "Examples of wastebin taxa include Simia, Rhynchocephalia, Carnosauria, Megalosaurus and Thecodontia." If each of these were expanded upon, showing the process by which such taxa were originally arrived at, that would be a start. Simia for one thing may not immediately bring "simians" to mind. --Wetman 07:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another needless Americanism[edit]

This article has been moved from Wastebin taxon to Wastebasket taxon, with the edit summary '"Wastebasket taxon" in slightly more common use that "wastebin taxon"' The editor, no one will be surprised to hear, is "a graduate student working on my MS Thesis in Biology at San Francisco State University." Well-intended, doubtless. --Wetman 10:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just look at the Google tests:

"wastebasket taxon" OR "wastebasket taxa" -wikipedia 232 hits

"wastebin taxon" OR "wastebin taxa" -wikipedia 106 hits

"dustbin taxon" OR "dustbin taxa" -wikipedia 49 hits

The numbers speak for themselves as far as frequency of useage. Yes, Americanisms are more common than Britishisms – that's just the way the language has gone. Peter G Werner 10:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form taxon[edit]

I don't see how the concept of a form taxon is a type of wastebasket taxon -- and I don't think it should redirect here. It's conflating the issue. — John.Conway 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invertebrates[edit]

The comment on invertebrates contradicts Invertebrates, which classifies non-vertebrate chordates as invertebrates (as one'd expect from the etymology). Also, saying that they share no distinctive ancestry suggests that they're polyphyletic, which is incorrect - the last common ancestor of all invertebrates was an invertebrate. 85.8.12.78 (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FixedSmith609 Talk 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invertebrates seem to be irrelevant in this article, because they were never regarded as a taxon at all. Stas (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics[edit]

What about linguistics? Nilo-Saharan and Austroasiatic are notorious cases. Sagotreespirit (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]