[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

[murrellze]

Kleo,

I can't answer your questions, but I am struck by the usefulness of this 
discussion in pointing out that 1) classifications are most valuable 
when they reflect our knowledge of evolutionary history and 2) the 
Phylocode is the best way we currently have to reflect evolutionary 
history in a classification system. 

The Linnaean classification system is woefully inadequate, as 
demonstrated in this discussion thread.  Why are we attempting to 
classify life in the 21st century without including our understanding of 
the "tree of life"?

Zack Murrell

Kleo Pullin wrote:
> I have a few questions about this discussion:
>  
> 1. Why/how/for what is Protista more useful or convenient?
>  
> 2. And what is the difference between usefulness and convenience--this thread is titled "Usefulness vs. convenience?"
>
>   
>>>         As for rhodophytes (and glaucophytes),
>>>       
> Cavalier-Smith includes them in a very broad Kingdom Plantae. Others
> have left them in Protista, but included green algae in Plantae (making
> it equivalent to Viridiplantae). 
>  
> 3. Who has left rhodophyta in the Protista?
>  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Kleo Pullin
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>