The seminal "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals--Handbook I, Cognitive Domain" (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) represented years of collaboration by the Committee of College and University Examiners, and was the first of three volumes that together would become known as Bloom's taxonomy1 of learning (so named after Benjamin Bloom, the original committee chair). The work instigated a paradigm shift in education, though subsequent volumes addressing affective (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) and psychomotor (Harrow, 1972) domains of learning "had much less impact" (McLeod, 1992, p. 576) on curriculum and evaluation. McLeod (1992) postulates that the lessened impact was a consequence of the affective domain's focus on internal constructs, which clashed with the behaviorist focus on observable behaviors. Since the publication of Bloom et al.'s taxonomy in 1956, there has been a proliferation of taxonomies of learning (e.g., Fink, 2013). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) examined and incorporated features of 19 other taxonomies in their Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT), while more recently Clarkson, Bishop, and Seah (2010) developed a five-stage taxonomy of Mathematical Wellbeing (MWB) by considering the original Bloom's taxonomy's (OBT's) cognitive and affective dimensions and adding an emotional taxonomy. This paper compares and contrasts the RBT with Marzano's New Taxonomy (MNT; Marzano & Kendall, 2001, 2007) with regards to the two taxonomies' treatment of domains of knowledge, cognition, affect and self, metacognition, and psychomotor procedures. It also discusses the uses of taxonomies and the application of the RBT and MNT to education.