# Taxonomy & Scientific Classification In Reptiles...



## I Love Reptiles (Dec 30, 2008)

*Hi evreyone! :2thumb:*

*I'm sure a lot of you already know - and i'm sure a lot of you don't really need to know, but for those of you who need to or want to know, here is a thread about the taxonomy and scientific classification in reptiles - should you ever need it! :2thumb:*


The kingdom *''Animalia'' (an-e-may-lee-a)* consists of all animals that can move, reproduce, respire, ingest, excreat and grow.
The main ''sub-kingdom'' in the kingdom of Animalia is called *''Deuterostomes'' (doo-teer-o-stom-s)*. Most of these have a complete digestive track, and most of them are vertebrates along with some closley related invertebrates.
The main phyla (fi-la) of the sub-kingdom ''Deuterostomes'' is called *''Chordata'' **(chor-da-ta)*. All of these have backbones and a ''post-anal tail''.
And now, onto reptiles in specific. The phyla chordata consists of land vertebrates such as reptiles, birds and most mammels. One of the groups, is reptiles. ''Reptiles'' is it's common name, but scientists called them *''Reptillia'' (rep-til-e-a)*.
*The ''class'' reptillia is then, scientificly, divided into 4 ''orders''. They are currently recognised as:*

*''Crocadillia'' **(croc-a-dil-e-a)*. Consisting of crocodiles, gavials, caiman and alligators. With approximately 23 species.
*''Sphenodontia''* *(s-fen-o-dont-e-a)*. Consisting of the tuatara species from New Zeland. With approximately 2 species.
*''Squmata'' **(s-qw-oo-mat-a)*. Consisting of snakes, lizards and amphisbaenas. With approximately 7'900 species.
*''Tesdudines'' **(tes-doo-dine-s)*. Consisting of all ''Chelonians'' (reptiles with shells) such as turtles, tortoises and terrapins. With approximately 300 species.
*All of those are cold-blooded. All of them have backbones and most of them lay eggs, apart from some snakes such as the anaconda which give birth to live young. *​
*Most people commenly know those 4 groups as 3 groups: snakes, lizards and turtles. But the ones above are ''scientific classifications'' - what some call ''taxonomy in reptiles''.*

*From this, all reptiles are given their ''scientific name'' - sometimes called their ''latin-names'' - as that is where most of the originated from, although some are ''ancient greek''.*

*Thank you for taking the time to read this long thread.*
*I hope this helps you out a bit.*

*:2thumb: I Love Reptiles :2thumb:*


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

I Love Reptiles said:


> [*]And now, onto reptiles in specific. The phyla chordata consists of land vertebrates such as reptiles, birds and most mammels.


Actually, the phylum Chordata consists of "everything with a backbone" - fish, amphibians, the lot. ALL mammals are members of phylum Chordata.


----------



## I Love Reptiles (Dec 30, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> Actually, the phylum Chordata consists of "everything with a backbone" - fish, amphibians, the lot. ALL mammals are members of phylum Chordata.


Thank you for correcting me.

Although, personnaly, i don't think it's that bad considering i'm only 13.


----------



## Tehanu (Nov 12, 2006)

To be honest, (sorry...)

It would have been better if you'd just linked some Wikipedia pages.
It's good that you've been looking into this yourself but there's no point in passing misinformation to others.

:2thumb:Sorry to be a stick in the mud.


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

Been more helpful if things were spelled correctly.
Start with Squ*a*mata and work through. 

Just looked again... 1 out of the 3 "orders" spelled correctly is not bad i suppose.:whistling2:


----------



## I Love Reptiles (Dec 30, 2008)

Oh forget it!

I'm quitting the forums!

Some may think i'm over-reacting but i'm just fed up of people going onto me about my spelling!

I'm only 13 and never been that good at spelling! And does it really matter?

Anyway, with all of the hreads i've added on here - i've just been trying to help and then i get a load of people on my case so i'm just not gonna bother anymore!

I know all of you are entitled to your own opinion but don't go onto me about it! I'm not the only one on these forums with bad spelling.

So goodbye.
Oh - sorry - DID I HAVE ANY SPELLING MISTAKES IN THAT?! :censor:


----------



## Fixx (May 6, 2006)

I Love Reptiles said:


> Oh - sorry - DID I HAVE ANY SPELLING MISTAKES IN THAT?! :censor:


No, you spelt 'that' perfectly. 10/10 :2thumb:


----------



## tomsdragons (Dec 23, 2007)

lol..

please dont be like that, people are offering support, think of it as a nice way, not a bad way..
Tom


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

aw, relax... it's all good!:2thumb:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

I Love Reptiles said:


> Some may think i'm over-reacting but i'm just fed up of people going onto me about my spelling! I'm only 13 and never been that good at spelling! And does it really matter?


If you try using the browser "Google Chrome" or "Firefox" it will offer you an automatic spell checker. This might not help much with specialist words, but it'll catch the little errors.

At thirteen I had won second place in the Albuquerque City spelling bee. Twice. Nerdy, yes - but I always did well in my English classes. (The words I misspelled which meant I didn't go to State: _ocarina _and _unachieved_)

It also helps to read through what you're posting again to make sure it all reads right - someone searching for "squmata" using your guide will find it much harder to find information than if you've spelled it correctly. And people WILL take you more seriously if your posts look like you've given them the care and attention in writing that you want your readers to give you.

I didn't say what you posted was bad (although you should have checked what "chordata" actually means - spinal "cord" is derived from "chordata") but if you're offering scientific information as facts it's best to make sure you've got it 100% correct first 

And although I try to go by the rule of posting on forums "Never say to someone else what you would get upset if someone else said to you" you DO need to have a bit of a thick skin, because the nature of forums is to talk back and forth - nobody will agree with you all of the time, and people forget that there's another person on the other side of the screen sometimes. It's a lot easier to be nasty to someone you can't see - and because you're only reading words on a screen, it's a lot easier to THINK someone else is being nasty to you when they might not have meant it that way at all.


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

Well, i wish i'd known that when i was 13.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

i'll say this, taxonomy was back in the day, the starting point with herps. there wasn't much more than short encyclopedia entry type of information, a paragraph or two about a snake... no care sheets to speak of generally. but taxonomy was all there... back then you learned about new snakes and lizards by studying reptile classification.... you knew all the boas and pythons before you had ever seen them... you also developed a clear understanding of things by their relationship evolutionarily speaking.
yep, i used to go to the library looking for binomial names... the concept of families, sub-families, genus, species, sub-species blah, blah were second nature back then. most guys could tell what genus something was in without having a clue as to what species he's looking at... characteristics popped out at you when you learned that way.

i've always noticed how new and somewhat experienced keepers don't really have a mental picture of classification... we all eventually learn it all but back in the day that was always mastered first...

i don't know... i just wanted to mention this for some reason... maybe it's just me... slow day here....:whistling2:


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

HABU said:


> i'll say this, taxonomy was back in the day, the starting point with herps. there wasn't much more than short encyclopedia entry type of information, a paragraph or two about a snake... no care sheets to speak of generally. but taxonomy was all there... back then you learned about new snakes and lizards by studying reptile classification.... you knew all the boas and pythons before you had ever seen them... you also developed a clear understanding of things by their relationship evolutionarily speaking.
> yep, i used to go to the library looking for binomial names... the concept of families, sub-families, genus, species, sub-species blah, blah were second nature back then. most guys could tell what genus something was in without having a clue as to what species he's looking at... characteristics popped out at you when you learned that way.
> 
> i've always noticed how new and somewhat experienced keepers don't really have a mental picture of classification... we all eventually learn it all but back in the day that was always mastered first...
> ...


Well i'm not really a keeper, so i cant comment for them, but i agree that the science behind it is important. I'd love there to be more scientifically oriented discussions on here. 

I'm always finding stuff i want to share, but most people care more about herpetoculture, rather than the scientific side.


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

I Love Reptiles said:


> Oh forget it!
> 
> I'm quitting the forums!
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if my post was a tad sarcastic. Last thing i'd want to do is put off a 13 year old herper.
It's just when dealing with scientific terminology spelling is important.
: victory:


----------



## sallyconyers (Mar 21, 2008)

Sorry to be a clever know it all but there is scientific proof that historic crocidilia actually became warm blooded and then due to there hunting strategies actually reversed back to being cold blooded! Crocodilia also were the firtst species to evolve a 4 chambered heart so should therefore be classified on their own and not with reptiles!!!


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

sallyconyers said:


> Sorry to be a clever know it all but there is scientific proof that historic crocidilia actually became warm blooded and then due to there hunting strategies actually reversed back to being cold blooded! Crocodilia also were the firtst species to evolve a 4 chambered heart so should therefore be classified on their own and not with reptiles!!!


I'm aware of evidence suggesting the secondary evolution of ectothermy in Crocodilia, but i would like to see the evidence suggesting the exclusion of Crocodilia from Reptilia. This contradicts the common concensus that Reptilia is a paraphyletic grouping due to the exclusion of Aves.


----------



## Tehanu (Nov 12, 2006)

There's lots of new thinking that suggests Crocodilia and Chelonia are not within the Reptilia...


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

Saedcantas said:


> There's lots of new thinking that suggests Crocodilia and Chelonia are not within the Reptilia...


I don't doubt there's ideas, there's always new paradigms in taxonomy, but i would really like to see some literature to suggest it. It would be interesting to see what reasons were given to alter the current perception.


----------

