[Taxacom] authorities of kingdoms of life

[James L. Reveal]

Monera Copel. (1938) and the two Whitaker names are not validly published; 
Linnaeus did not use the rank Kingdom and his names are not valid. I do not 
know about the Hogg name but would appreciated seeing the paper. It is 
possible the Haeckel (1866) name is valid but as this name can not be 
typified (only circumscribed), this may or may not apply in the sense used 
today. If its circumscription is not what we know today as Plantae, then, if 
validly published, any use of the name Plantae with a more refined 
description would be a later homonym and thus not legitimate.

Jim Reveal

The Monera can be traced to Copeland (1938):

Copeland, H. F. 1938. The kingdoms of organisms.
Quarterly Rev. Biology 13: 383-420.

The Fungi can be traced to Whitaker (1957, 1959):

Whittaker, R.H. 1957. The kingdoms of the living world. Ecology 38: 536-538.
Whittaker, R.H. 1959. On the broad classification
of organisms. Q. Rev. Biol. 34: 210-226.

The name Protoctista is derived from Hogg (1860),
although it is somewhat unclear whether he
proposed the name Protoctista or Primigenal.  He
considers "mineral" to be one of the kingdoms.  I
have a pdf copy of this paper should anyone be
interested in reading it.

Hogg, J. 1860. On the distinctions of a plant and
an animal, and on a fourth kingdom of nature. The
Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 12:216-225
(+ Plate III).

Robert Andersen



>
>Diana,
>    I am looking at Thomas Cavier-Smith's (1998)
>"A revised six-kingdom system of life" (Biol.
>Reviews, 73:203-266).  He shows Fungi Linnaeus,
>1753; Animalia Linnaeus, 1758; and Plantae
>Haeckel, 1866.   So that is three of them.
>
>     He doesn't use Monera, but rather Kingdom
>Bacteria Cohn, 1870.  He doesn't use Protista or
>Protoctista either, since he divides them among
>Protozoa, Chromista, and Plantae.  I personally
>prefer Protista (many people do), and I believe
>that was also from Haeckel, 1866.  Protoctista
>was named by Margulis herself, in the 1970's as
>I recall.  An ugly name in my opinion, and
>people often get the spelling wrong.  For what
>it's worth, my personal preference for the five
>kingdoms are Monera, Protista, Eumycota,
>Metaphyta, and Metazoa.
>    ----Cheers,
>            Ken Kinman
>********************************
>>From: Diana Hernández <dhernand at xolo.conabio.gob.mx>
>>To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>Subject: [Taxacom] authorities of kingdoms of life
>>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:26:06 -0600
>>
>>Dear collegues,
>>A very basic question:
>>Does anybody know the authorities for each kingdom of those
>>considered by Margulis & Schwartz, 1985:
>>Protoctista
>>Monera
>>Fungi
>>Plantae
>>Animalia
>>
>>And if there is any publication where this is established?
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>Diana Hernandez
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your
>friends list with Windows Live Spaces
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom mailing list
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.36/681 - Release Date: 2/11/2007 
6:50 PM