[Taxacom] Catalogue of Life (CoL) management classification draft document

[Stephen Thorpe]

You could use the "supergroup" classification of Parfrey et al.  
(2006), as I have done (currently) on Wikispecies:

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eukaryota#References

This has the advantage of fewer main clades...

S

Quoting Tony.Rees at csiro.au:

> Dear David, all,
>
> I've taken a look at the classification at  
> http://eutree.lifedesks.org/ bearing in mind that as you say, it is  
> a working rather than a reference structure. For example, the  
> highest level categories under "Eukaryota" look like this:
>
> Eukaryota
>
> # Amoebozoa
> # Ancyromonas
> # Apusomonads
> # Breviatea
> # Centroheliozoa
> # Cryptomonads+kathablepharids
> # Excavates
> # Glaucocystophytes
> # Haptophytes
> # Micronuclearia
> # Opisthokonts (incl. Choanoflagellates+animals,  
> Chytrids+fungi+microspora, plus more)
> # Paramyxea
> # Residua (includes acritarchs, residual algae, residual amoebae,  
> chitinozoa plus more)
> # Rhodophyta
> # SAR hypothesis (=Alveolates and Stramenopiles+Rhizaria)
> # Telonemidae
> # Viridaeplantae
>
> I think you will agree, though, that it may not be very suitable for  
> porting into the CoL style of hierarchy which really works around  
> the kingdom/phylum/class/order system, unless you are happy for all  
> of the above to be phyla (or perhaps kingdoms...) Is there anything  
> from the above that would be a better fit for CoL needs than the  
> alternative suggested in Dennis' paper?
>
> I guess the other issue for CoL is that they probably need to cite a  
> "published" classification (e.g. with versioning) that can be  
> superseded at some later point, than a continuously evolving web  
> product (however accurate this may be)...
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Patterson [mailto:dpatterson at eol.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 18 July 2009 11:38 PM
> To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart)
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Catalogue of Life (CoL) management  
> classification draft document
>
> Folks
>
> To answer Tony's question, No there is still no consensus over how  
> to handle the protists.  Molecular analyses have tended to add a  
> fair bit of noise to the picture, this has led to many speculations  
> expressed in the form of classificatory structures, and the  
> consequence is a lot of confusion.  Some parts of the scheme appear  
> to be increasingly robust, although the scope and definition of the  
> taxa remain uncertain.  Survivors at the top level seem to be the  
> Opisthokonts (animals, fungi and close protistan relatives),  
> Amoebozoa and Rhizaria.  Excavates go in an out of favor, while  
> chromalveolates and Archaeplastida are not solid.  Similarly, at  
> more distal points in the conceptual tree, some taxa, such as  
> Chromists, are unsupported by much beyond wishful thinking and so  
> are contentious.
>
> Ideally, the application of phylogenetic principles as criteria for  
> retention or dismissal of taxa would be wonderful, and  
> protistologists have been somewhat slow to move in this direction.
>
> A protist classification that is more consistent with currently  
> available data can be found at eutree.lifedesks.org.  It is a  
> working structure rather than a reference structure.  In that  
> system, if relationships are unclear, the contestants for most  
> proximate neighbors are placed as sister groups to minimize the risk  
> of producing polyphyletic taxa.
>
> As an interesting aside, the eutree classification was built from a  
> decade-old classification that had been based mostly on premolecular  
> data.  The conversion required fewer than 100 edits.  Those edits  
> included the addition of several previously missing genera and  
> species. That is, the somewhat costly molecular studies of the last  
> decade have led to about 70 discrete improvements in our knowledge  
> of this area.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity, Tony
>
> David Patterson
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Rees" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:49:56 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
> Subject: [Taxacom] Catalogue of Life (CoL) management classification  
> draft document
>
> Dear Taxacomers,
>
> For those who may not have yet come across it, I thought it might be  
> worth mentioning that a draft discussion document entitled "Towards  
> a management hierarchy (classification) for the Catalogue of Life"  
> by Dennis Gordon is now available on the CoL website (and also the  
> CD-ROM distribution version for 2009) at the following URL:
>
> http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2009/info_hierarchy.php
>
> There is no stated procedure for commenting on this draft or to whom  
> such comments should be addressed, but it makes good reading for  
> those interested in such matters, and might stimulate some relevant  
> discussion as well, updated since the last time this issue was  
> raised on the list around one year ago. I'd be particularly  
> interested in the question of whether a consensus now exists to  
> follow e.g. Cavalier-Smith in treating the protists, or whether  
> there are other views on this that are also worthy of consideration  
> (since I would appreciate some guidance in this area myself).
>
> Regards - Tony Rees
>
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu  
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Adolf & Oluna  
> Ceska [aceska at telus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 18 July 2009 1:28 AM
> To: 'TAXACOM'
> Subject: [Taxacom] Drawing of Myriophyllum fruits
>
> I am looking for drawings of fruits ("mericarps") of the following
> water-milfoil (Myriophyllum) species:
>
>
>
> Myriophyllum heterophyllum
>
> Myriophyllum pinnatum
>
> Myriophyllum quitense
>
> Myriophyllum ussuriense
>
>
>
> I would greatly appreciate if some of those botanists who like to have their
> feet wet could help me.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Adolf Ceska, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.