[Taxacom] authorities of kingdoms of life
Ken Kinman
kinman at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 12 20:22:10 CST 2007
Dear All,
It appears that Haeckel 1866 included Phylum "Moneres" in his Kingdom
Protista. However, he had raised it to Kingdom Monera by 1870 (perhaps in
1868?). However, if we are going to get technical, we must consult the
"Official List" of bacterial names. The only kingdom on that list is
Kingdom Bacteria Cavalier-Smith, 2002. However, since Cavalier-Smith
himself in 1998 attributes the authorship of Bacteria to Cohn 1870, I don't
see the harm in calling it Kingdom Bacteria Cohn, 1870. Whoever the
official author is, I will henceforth use Kingdom Bacteria rather than
Kingdom Monera!!! Archaebacteria is recognized as a valid division (phylum)
name, which is fine with me (as is the absence of the totally inappropriate
name "Archaea" from the official list).
As for Kingdom Protista Haeckel 1866, none of the traditional Codes has
real jurisdiction, since it is a high level taxon and contains forms
traditionally considered animals or plants or both (some having both
zoological and botanical names). I forgot that Margulis had merely
resurrected the name Protoctista, but most biologists who I know don't like
it or use it. Anyway, Haeckel continued to use Kingdom Protista even after
he separated off Kingdom Monera for the prokaryotes, so the author of
Protista is Haeckel whether it be technically dated 1866, 1868, or 1870.
Of course, the strict cladists don't like either Kingdom Bacteria
(prokaryotes) or Kingdom Protista (protists), because they are paraphyletic.
But that's too bad, because most everyone else is going to keep using
them. It was an unfortunate attempt to cladify prokaryotes that resulted in
Woese's Three Domain classification, but that has been dying a slow death
(far too slow from my perspective) since Ernst Mayr's paper "Two Empires or
Three" in 1998 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 95:9720-9723). There's nothing
archaic about Archaebacteria anyway, and I still prefer the name
Metabacteria (which actually has priority over Archaea).
In any case, it is time for us to get back to the fundamental division
of life into prokaryotes (Kingdom Bacteria) and eukaryotes (the other four
kingdoms). You can formally classify them as Empire Prokaryota and Empire
Eukaryota (as did Cavalier-Smith and Ernst Mayr), but with just 5 Kingdoms
to learn, is lumping them into Empires really all that necessary? Empire
Prokaryota is somewhat redundant (= Kingdom Bacteria), so "Kingdom Bacteria
(prokaryotes)" certainly gets that information across nice and clear. What
is perhaps an even more important lesson is that "fungi" is NOT a natural
group, and that is why I prefer Kingdom Eumycota for the "true fungi".
----Cheers,
Ken Kinman
P.S. Metazoa Haeckel, 1874 is bascially a synonym of Animalia Linnaeus
1758, so take your pick, although I still prefer the former (unless you want
to put protozoans in Animalia too). And Metazoa literally means "higher
animals", while Animalia has always been rather nebulous, but no big deal
either way. However, Kingdom Metaphyta does NOT equal what Cavalier-Smith
and others now call Kingdom Plantae (including red algae, glaucophytes, and
green algae). Therefore the name Plantae is now nebulous, while Metaphyta
is universally recognized as the clade of embryophytes (= Cormophyta
Endlicher, 1836; but how many people would actually prefer Cormophyta over
Metaphyta?). As Jim Reveal noted, the expansion of Haeckel's Plantae is
probably not technically valid anyway.
Anyway, I obviously favor keeping all the algae in Kingdom Protista.
Every attempt to cladify protists has failed miserably, so why do so many
people keep trying to split them up just because they are paraphyletic.
They're not polyphyletic AND it's a very useful taxon, so I say leave well
enough alone!!! Here's the classification and phylogeny of Kingdom Protista
which I posted here on Taxacom almost a year ago (05 March 2006):
Dear All,
Since the 5-Kingdom system has been so popular for so long, I'm going
to (temporarily?) give it a try here. To convert it to my preferred
4-Kingdom system, you can simply replace the exgroup marker {{EUMYCOTA}}
with the 3 eumycotan Phyla--Eomycota (incl. microsporidians), Ascomycota,
and Basidiomycota. In any case, I will not use the name "Fungi" as a formal
taxon name (Eumycota is far more precise for the true fungi). And I
certainly will not recognize a 6th Kingdom for the Chromista clade
(Cryptophyta, Haptophyta, and Heterokonta). Following the classification, I
will further discuss various subclades of Protista.
Anyway, the total is 16 Phyla of protists (and it would be 19 phyla if
you included the 3 phyla of Eumycota). The Apusozoa may need to be split off
from Rhizaria, but I expect virtually all of the other "candidate" phyla
will actually turn out to fit nicely into one of the phyla listed below. We
certainly do NOT need a bunch of new eukaryotic kingdoms. As always, the
main clades are numbered in the order in which they split off
phylogenetically.
KINGDOM PROTISTA
1 Choanozoa (= Mesomycetozoa)
_a_ {{EUMYCOTA}}
_b_ {{METAZOA}}
2 Amoebozoa
3 Rhizaria
4 Loukozoa (jakobids and allies)
B Metamonada (incl. Parabasalia)
C Percolozoa
D Euglenozoa
5 Glaucophyta
B Rhodophyta
C Chlorophyta
_a_ {{METAPHYTA}}
6 Cryptophyta
B Haptophyta
C Heterokonta (stramenopiles)
7 Ciliophora
8 Dinozoa (or Dinophyta)
9 Sporozoa
----------------------------------------------
NOTES: Clade 1 is the opisthokont clade, which is sister to the
anterokont clade (clades 2-9). Phylum Amoebozoa is sister to the bikonts
(clades 3-9). Phylum Rhizaria is sister to the corticoflagellates (clades
4-9).
Clade 4 is made up of the four excavate phyla (of which Percolozoa and
Euglenozoa make up a discicristate subclade). Excavates are sister to the
photokaryotes (clades 5-9). Clade 5 is the plant clade, which
Cavalier-Smith calls Plantae, and it also equals the Archaeplastida clade of
Adl et al., 2005. And finally we have the chromalveolates
(three phyla of chromists and three phyla of alveolates)---still the "crown
group" after all these years. :-)
------Cheers,
Ken Kinman
*********************************
Jim Reveal wrote:
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
> >>
_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy
Awards® http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list