species: Difference between revisions
AndyMabbett (talk | contribs) m (sub-heads) |
AndyMabbett (talk | contribs) (sub-head) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
That's what a "species" microformat might do for you. | That's what a "species" microformat might do for you. | ||
==See also== | |||
Here's some work-in-progress: | Here's some work-in-progress: | ||
*[[species-examples]] | *[[species-examples]] | ||
*[[species-brainstorming]] | *[[species-brainstorming]] |
Revision as of 14:50, 23 September 2006
Species
Introdcution
People use the vernacular AND taxonomic names of species in everyday speech and writing - just read or watch any populist gardening magazine or television programme.
Consider this list: "Blackbird", "poodle", "T Rex", "potato", "French Marigold", "Wisteria", "E. Coli", "HIV", "Rubella" and "human being".
"T Rex" is "Tyrannosaurus rex"; "E. Coli" is "Escherichia coli"; "HIV" is "Human immunodeficiency virus" and "Rubella" is "Rubella virus". All are the taxonomic (or scientific) names of unique species.
"Wisteria" is a taxonomic genus.
"Blackbird"; "poodle"; "potato"; "French Marigold" and "human being" (arguments about Neanderthals not withstanding) are vernacular (or common) names, but still refer to individual species.
Proposal
Imagine viewing a web page with a reference to a species - and being able to use an add-on to you browser to be taken directly to information about that species, on, say, Wikipedia, or another site, such as in an academic database, of your choosing.
That's what a "species" microformat might do for you.
See also
Here's some work-in-progress: