User talk:Marshallsumter/Keynote lectures (draft)/Zoology

Organization
Today I added several bits of content for major groups/sections. I also added some sections that I felt important (like Entomology) that were missing. There are several more that could be added.

I think a next big edit for this page might be to organize the sections better - into Vertebrate Zoology, Invertebrate Zoology, and Other (taxonomy, genetics, etc.). An alternative to that would be to list them alphabetically. I'm not sure which would be more useful to users.--Rhole2001 (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Added some more content after posting that. In the content I'm adding, I'm making some words bold when they first appear in a particular entry. I'm doing this with the hope we can build a glossary and use these words for quizzes, vocabulary games, and other fun things. --Rhole2001 (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure how to organize the lecture but wanted to offer the School:Zoology a keynote lecture that was a kind of TOC to Zoology. I'm open to ideas! My original idea was to give subfields about equal lecture coverage independent of the number of species so that the major species division of Invertebrate Zoology might have the same amount of description as Ammonoids even though ammonoids are a small extinct group compared to all invertebrates. So have fun! Let's see what you'd like to have. Also, if your interested there is a Zoology/Quiz you're welcome to contribute to! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point about giving the subfields equal coverage, and I support it at this level of presentation. I think that idea can be easily maintained. The entries I've added too, I attempted to do that (see for instance Mammalogy and Ornithology) by balancing the amount and kinds of information presented. I don't think that would suffer by simply putting the Vertebrate Zoology entry in front of them, essentially as introducing some of the concepts (like "vertebrate"). Having thought about it, I think too, that following a similar order of presentation to common textbooks would make it a more useful resource to active teachers. While some of the material is technically hierarchical, e.g. Mammalogy is a subdiscipline of Vertebrate Zoology, I'm not sure a hierarchical format is needed here (like the one I edited last night into the Geological Time Scale entries of Draft:Paleontology, where I do strongly think it suitable). Taking advantage of the medium, I also want to learn (and will) how to make internal links so saying "a subdiscipline of Vertebrate Zoology" can be linked to the VZ entry heading. I just need to take a moment to find one to copy. SOOOO much to learn! Thanks for the heads up on Zoology/Quiz. More to learn how to do. That one will take some sandbox play. (off to find if there's a paleontology/quiz) --Rhole2001 (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Found both quizzes. Don't understand most of what they're talking about. And the drafts don't seem to cover any of what they're talking about. More learning.--Rhole2001 (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a "new" table of contents/order
Having another look through, and at a couple of references I propose the following as a main table of contents and order or presentation. --Rhole2001 (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Zoology
 * Zoography (this begins the cross-taxa subdisciplines)
 * Comparative Anatomy
 * Animal Physiology
 * Behavioral Ecology
 * Ethology
 * Soil Zoology
 * Systematics & Taxonomy
 * Invertebrate Zoology (first division of the taxonomic subdisciplines)
 * Malacology
 * Echinodermology
 * Entomology
 * Arachnology
 * Parasitology
 * Vertebrate Zoology
 * Ichthyology
 * Herpetology
 * Batrachology
 * Ophiology
 * Ornithology
 * Mammalogy
 * See also
 * References
 * External Links


 * Well, this is looking somewhat like Zoology. We can prepare lectures, lessons and resources but not encyclopedia articles. Check the Wikipedia article to be sure this is different to someone relatively unfamiliar with Zoology, then have fun! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Some Suggestions
I would suggest if you are going to separate out snakes and frogs from herpetology then you should do it more accurately. Snakes are generally listed with lizards, as squamates, he study of turtles is chelonology for example. If you want to recognise these it would flow better to group them under herpetology as subheadings. Must then decide how to deal with birds which are also repylies of course. cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 16:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)