Bright Raven
Well-known member
JWBrahman":19yx2asy said:Bright Raven":19yx2asy said:JWBrahman":19yx2asy said:It's called binomial for a reason.
Yep. Binomial nomenclature was fundamental to biology until the molecular age. My son who his PhD in molecular biology, cancer cell study, says they pay little attention to taxonomy today. They are doing everything at the molecular level.
YES. I used the following reference:
Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M., eds. (2005). "Bos taurus". Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494
Excerpt:
Cattle were originally identified as three separate species: Bos taurus, the European or "taurine" cattle (including similar types from Africa and Asia); Bos indicus, the zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and taurine cattle. These have been reclassified as one species, Bos taurus, with three subspecies: Bos taurus primigenius, Bos taurus indicus, and Bos taurus taurus.
Edited to add: The animal science folks are probably unaware of the change ( not intended to be an insult because they don't deal in the pure biological sciences) but because of that most animal science folks are going to follow the preclassification taxonomy.
Unless it's adopted as a standard usage by everyone it's just one man's book.
In Zoology, it is the standard. It has been adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
If you read my post, (check what I underlined) I mentioned that Animal Science is not using the term.
John, pure Biological Science has a stuffy relationship with Animal Science. In Universities the Biological Sciences at one time looked down their noses at the Animal Sciences.