Freebase: Discussion about Organism Classification Rank

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-05T18:28:49.0013Z

I think I confused myself here. There is /biology/organism_classification/higher_classification and there is /biology/organism_classification_rank/higher_rank. I think the complaint is that /biology/organism_classification_rank/higher_rank is not filled out enough for the population of real world /biology/organism_classification/higher_classification data

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-05T18:14:46.0014Z

Agree completely. In fact, see the data at the top of this app which is what I've been using to validate what we've currently got in the tree :-)

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-05T18:10:37.0013Z

I agree, which is why I proposed what I said above. Because we are using Organism Classification to model Organisms as well as Ranks its likely to be less specific for Ranks than an individual organism. Im fine with adding Family in there but I think Tribe and Subtribe need to be there also.

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-05T18:06:05.0032Z

While it's true that subtribe is the next highest possible rank above genus, there's no requirement that any organism is actually assigned a subtribe; the only required classifications are the 8 major taxonomic ranks (division, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species); all the minor ranks (tribe, suborder, superfamily, etc) are optional. It's perfectly valid (and in fact very common) for a genus to be connected directly to a family rather than having a tribe (and possibly subtribe) inbetween; see for example Gorilla gorilla.

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-05T17:32:21.0018Z

I had intended it for the most immediate higher and lower rank of a classification.

ITIS has Subtribe as the next highest rank above Genus. Wikipedia is more nuanced, since it could be Tribe, Subtribe or Alliance.

I would be fine with (for these higher taxa) de-normalizing it and having Family, Sub-Tribe and Tribe all connected.

If you want me to run some stats on the data we have already to determine when we have in fact connected a Genus to a Family rather than a Tribe I can do that....

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-05T17:07:10.0004Z

Right, so it looks like we're all confused as to what it's for :-)

Unless anyone speaks up, I'm going to continue with the assumption that we all made that it's for the possible higher/lower ranks and fill that data in sometime in the next few days (unless I forget).

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-04T20:51:53.0000Z

Yeah, it's sort of odd -- looking at the data, I was expecting that the values should be all the ranks which can possibly be the next higher or lower rank, but it seems like most of the data is just for the sub/super/infra/etc. ranks, which I don't think really fits that description.

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-04T12:44:08.0013Z

That's exactly what I'm trying to use it for, but in that case it's missing some really obvious data: for example, genus doesn't have a higher rank of family, so I startted wondering if there was something I was missing :-)

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-04T12:37:35.0006Z

Sanity checking on the higher/lower classifications in Organism Classification?? (I'm guessing.)

Organism Classification Rank: Higher/lower rank

2010-01-04T12:20:02.0019Z

What are the higher/lower rank properties on the Organism Classification Rank type intended for?