Kingdom Eumycota and "fungi sensu lato"

[Ken Kinman]

Dear Taxacomers:
      Whether the 10 taxon key should be a requirement or recommendation
(the latter seems preferable to me),  is not of great concern to me
(being a zoologist foremost).  However, the wording "fungi sensu lato"
does concern me, and a short paper I wrote in 1995 indicates why.  The
text is include below for those who wish to read it [it does not appear
on my internet homepage, which is presently devoted mainly to bacterial
systematics].
                         Sincerely, Ken Kinman
 =====================================================
     JOURNAL OF METABIOSYSTEMATICS No. 2 (October 1995).  Entitled "Back
To Four Kingdoms of Organisms?!!  Text is as follows:
     The most recent revival of a polyphyletic classification of
"Kingdom Fungi" (Carlile and Watkinson, 1994.  The Fungi.  Academic
Press) is just one more reason to abandon a separate fifth kingdom for
that group.  In a comprehensive reclassification of organisms (The
Kinman System: Toward A Stable Cladisto-Eclectic Classification of
Organisms; published 1994), I recently concluded that it "does not make
sense to split the groups which mycologists study into different
kingdoms," and returned to a four-kingdom classification of life similar
to the of A. J. Cain in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974, Macropaedia,
Vol. 4:690-691).  The fungal way of life has arisen in many separate,
unrelated lineages: eumycotans, percolozoans, opalozoans, mycetozoans,
and the heterokont pseudofungi (not to mention saprophytic metaphtes and
bacteria).
     The various combinations of groups that have been assigned to a
"Kingdom Fungi" are not only very inconvenient and confusing, but
clearly demonstrate the inadvisability of recognizing a fifth kingdom.
Although this latter phrase was used as the title of another recently
published boook on fungi (The Fifth Kingdom, 2nd Edition, by B.
Kendrick, 1992), at least its author provided the following disclaimer:
"this book does not, as its title implies, deal exclusively with the
Fifth Kingdom, Eumycota, but also discusses some elements of Kingdom
Protoctista.
     I feel very strongly that to continue to maintain the fiction of a
group "Fungi" at any taxonomic level would be CONDEMNING ANOTHER
GENERATION OF BIOLOGISTS to muddles thinking about these organisms.  The
vast majority of "typical" fungi belong in Phylum Eumycota, whether one
restricts to higher fungi, or also includes their chytrid ancestors.
Either approach is natural and defensible, but Cavalier-Smith
(Microbiol. Rev., 57:953-994) eloquently argues the case for including
chytrids.  In an otherwise excellent cladistic analysis of eumycotans
(Cladistics, 4:227-277), Tehler also includes the hypochytrids and uses
oomycetes as an outgroup.  However, both these groups are heterokonts
(united in Cavalier-Smith's taxon Pseudofungi (Microbiol. Rev.,
57:953-994) and only convergently similar to Eumycota.
     Returning to a stable four-kingdom classification is strongly
urged.  Kingdom Protista (or Protoctista for those who prefer the longer
spelling) can simply be defined as including all eukaryotes with the
removal of two holophyletic (strictly monophyletic) kingdoms (namely
Metaphyta and Metazoa).  Although broad in its diversity, Protista can
be grouped into as few as 16 phyla (as I did recently in the The Kinman
System).  Phylum Eumycota is the largest in terms  of species, but not
necessarily the most diverse (depending on which subjective view of
diversity one uses).  Althogh Eumycota (not "Fungi"!!) can be raised to
kingdom level, this continues to tempt teachers, textbook authors and
others to include various unrelated saprophytic groups (especially by
those who define "fungi" by their nutritive mode).  Since Eumycotans
need to be included with protists for comparative studies,
classificatory exclusion makes no sense.  I believe students and
teachers in general (and mycologists in particular) would be better
served by a 4-Kingdom system.
     As for the many classification schemes recognizing more than 4 or 5
kingdoms, few are carefully crafted (the best is probably the 8-kingdom
of Cavalier-Smith; Microbiol. Rev., 57:953-994).  Other split organisms
into so many kingdoms that they are not only inherently unstalbe, but
also impractical unfamiliar, difficult to teach or learn, and lacking in
heuristic value.   Even the 8-Kingdom system seems to be faltering with
recent evidence that Chromista is probably polyphyletic (Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci., 91:11368-72).  As for subdividing Kingdom Monera
(prokaryotes) into separate kingdoms (or higher categories such as
Empires of Domains), this will probably prove to be not only
unnecessary, but probably deceptively erroneous (and thus must be
challenged and carefully reevaluated, as was related in the first issue
of this fournal).  The only useful category above kingdom level is that
of Cosmogenre, designating independently evolved systems of life,
Earth-based life being called Geobiota (The Kinman System, 1994).  Other
systems can be collectively termed Exobiota until specific examples ar
discovered and named [see text of Journal of MetaBioSystematics No. 6
for the naming of Cosmogenre Martiobiota, the text of that paper
appearing on my Internet homepage at the URL given below].
                     Kenneth E. Kinman
                     P.O. Box 1377
                     Hays, Kansas  67601
Homepage:  www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5074
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com