English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The objective of this article to prove “Darwinian classification of plant and animal (taxonomical evidences) opposite to Darwin’s theory” and it is a true fact: because diverse literature confirmed that Darwinian classifications/evolutionary classifications of both in plant and in animal kingdom are absent. However, in plant kingdom, Darwinian classifications systems of Hutchinson, Engler and Prantl, Bessy, Eichler, Takhtajan etc. are not valid as evolutionary classification; as those classifications are based on assumption, modification and similar to Bentham and Hooker’s classifications (non-evolutionary classifications). Again, fossils are the direct evidences of Darwin’s theory. But those classifications are not based on fossils as the fossils of angiosperm provide little help to taxonomists in separating the concept of evolutionary origin and diversification. Furthermore, various journalisms are demanded the absence of Darwinian classification in the animal kingdom. Additionally, the naming (the goal of taxonomy) of both plants and animals are completed by Linnaeus’s “Rules and Laws”, but not evolutionary rule.