Talk:Genus

	Genus is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details, even for articles which are inherently technical.

[edit] Can species in a Genus Mate?

I remember from my Biology class in grade 12 that certain species could mate in a genus. For example, this is why it was theorized that human and neanderthalers may have mated in Europe -- a theory which has since been disproven. But I do know that in Toronto...a Lioness and a Leopard naturally mated together [[1]]. So can a two species of the same genus actually breed together? Or does it depend upon what particular genus and species we are talking about?

It depends on which genus and which subspecies. Most members of genus Canis (canines: dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos) can interbreed with fertile offspring (I know of no exceptions personally).

[edit] What does "genus" really mean?

This article does not really explain what makes a genus a genus; it just circulates around a definition. What differences make a genus distinct from another? MrBenzpyrene 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can make any group a genus. It is just a convention established by experts in a particular field of taxonomy. The mechanisms involved in establishing a particular convention are too tricky to be explained in a nutshell but some rational framework for the discussions was provided by cladistics in the 1970s. Of course, the principles of cladistics are more, actually, guidelines :) Seriously, there is no imaginable justification for ascribing any rank in taxonomic hierarchy (except for species, which is a bit less arbitrary). It has a lot to do with nomenclature (the rules of naming) and nothing to do with some real natural entities of a generic quality. Alexei Kouprianov 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article could at least include that information. If a genus cannot be easily defined in a short space, at least some indication of what it is and isn't would be helpful, or something to narrow the definition more than no definition at all. Rintrah 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The only solution is to extend a historical section, which is virtually absent now. I'll see what I can do about that. Alexei Kouprianov 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms "generic" and "specific" are derived from the same cognates as "genus" and "species". This gives us a vital etymological clue as to the original distinction. The sciences of genetics and skeletal measurement have blurred any rigid categorization. --205.201.141.146 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure/Technical

I think this article is widely different from the other taxonomy articles, and may be a bit too technical. I don't feel qualified to rewrite it myself, but I felt it was worth nothing.Name sugg by Pranav

[edit] A Re-write

I made a first attempt this morning to substantially rework and re-order this article, especially the first few paragraphs. I thought that the first sections in particular were poorly put-together, opaque, and hard to follow. Invertzoo 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I <33333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.154.254 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)