[Taxacom] Protists and the ICBN [was: Kingdom Protista (minor recoding)]
Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Tue Aug 2 22:08:31 CDT 2011
Dear Ken,
I can't speak for Cavalier-Smith, but according to the ICBN Code preamble:
"The rules and recommendations apply to all organisms traditionally treated as plants, whether fossil or non-fossil, e.g. blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria); fungi, including chytrids, oomycetes, and slime moulds; photosynthetic protists and taxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups."
Hence I would imagine that euglenoids and dinoflagellates, traditionally treated as algae/photosnynthetic protists (including non photosynthetic components of these groups) would fall into this botanical coverage as stated, though other non-photosynthetic protists now grouped with them e.g. remaining Euglenozoa sens. lat., remaining Dinozoa sens. lat. would not be.
The chlorarachniophytes would probably be included also, though these and also the euglenoids and dinoflagellates are of course also claimed by zoologists (the well known ambiregnal protists, see e.g. http://biostor.org/reference/2636).
Not sure if this helps, of course...
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2011 12:53 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Protists and the ICBN [was: Kingdom Protista (minor
> recoding)]
>
> Dear All,
> I have had difficulty accessing all of the "Supplementary Data"
> in Cavalier-Smith's paper. He apparently states that only certain
> group(s) of phyla should be under the jurisdiction of the International
> Code of Botanical Nomenclature, and that all other protist phyla are
> under the jurisdiction of the International Code of Zoological
> Nomenclature.
> I assume most taxacomers have better access to the Supplementary
> Data in his paper than I do, and I am interested if any botanists (in
> particular) have an opinion on which phyla he regards as being under
> the
>
> jurisdiction of the ICBN, and more importantly which protist phyla he
> regards as under the jurisdiction of the ICZN (even though some of
> their
>
> taxa have acquired plastids). For example, I assume he still regards
> Phylum Euglenozoa as being under the jurisdiction of the ICZN, but what
> about Dinozoa/Dinophyta (now part of his Chromista)?
> ----------Ken
> -------------------------------------------------------
> I wrote:
> Dear All,
> Last year I posted on Taxacom some minor recoding
> of the Phyla in my classification of Kingdom Protista. However, I did
> not realize (until this weekend) that Cavalier-Smith had proposed a
> revised phylogeny in his paper "Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the
> eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree" (Biology Letters, 6:342-345).
>
> Although he has expanded his separate protist Kingdom
> Chromista to match the "SAR" clade, our view of the phylogeny of that
> clade is identical, so I see no need whatsoever to change the coding of
> that second part of my classification. Our major disagreement remains
> that instead of recognizing a single Kingdom Protista (as I do), he
> still insists on dividing it into two Kingdoms, a basal Kingdom
> Protozoa
> (paraphyletic) and a derived Kingdom Chromista (which is now much
> larger
>
> than what he previously included within it). I still believe the single
> Kingdom Protista has always been a far more stable taxon and also far
> easier for most biologists to wrap their head around (even more so for
> non-biologists). This split seems to have caused more confusion than
> it
>
> has provided new understanding or clarity.
> Anyway, the big change is in the rooting and
> early phylogeny of Kingdom Protista. To put it simply, Cavalier-Smith
> has now placed the excavates at the base of the protists instead of the
> unikonts. You would think that a new rerooting of the eukaryotic tree
> would require a radical recoding of my classification, but it does not,
> because the major clades are still the same and just need to be
> slightly
>
> rearranged with relatively minor changes in coding.
>
> And as far as the content, I have only added
> the Phylum Apusozoa (which has now clearly been shown to be distinct
> from Rhizaria). So below, I first show my 2010 classification, and
> below
>
> that is my 2011 recoding (with the addition of Phylum Apusozoa)
> following Cavalier-Smith's most recent paper (which makes perfect sense
> to me as far as evolution and phylogeny are concerned). But I still
> don't like his splitting of Kingdom Protista into two separate Kingdoms
> (which I have always thought just complicates the classification
> unnecessarily). I didn't like Chromista sensu stricto, and I don't like
> this new Chromista (sensu lato) any better. It's just one of many
> clades
>
> within Kingdom Protista as far as I am concerned.
> -------Ken Kinman
>
> My 2010 classification:
>
> KINGDOM PROTISTA
>
> 1 Choanozoa%%
> _a_ {{Kingdom EUMYCOTA}} (true fungi)
> _b_ {{Kingdom METAZOA}}
> 2 Amoebozoa
> 3A Metamonada (incl. Parabasalia)
> B Loukozoa (jakobids and allies)
> C Percolozoa
> D Euglenozoa
> 4A Glaucophyta
> B Rhodophyta
> C Chlorophyta%
> _a_ {{Kingdom METAPHYTA}} (embryophytes)
> 5A Cryptophyta
> B Haptophyta
> 6 Rhizaria
> 7 Heterokonta (stramenopiles)
> 8 Ciliophora
> 9 Dinozoa (or Dinophyta)
> 10 Sporozoa
> ----------------------------------------------
> Now recoded to reflect Cavalier-Smith's paper:
> KINGDOM PROTISTA
>
> 1 Euglenozoa
> 2A Percolozoa
> B Loukozoa
> C Metamonada
> 3A Amoebozoa
> B Apusozoa
> C Choanozoa%%
> _a_ {{Kingdom EUMYCOTA}} (true fungi)
> _b_ {{Kingdom METAZOA}}
> 4A Glaucophyta
> B Rhodophyta
> C Chlorophyta%
> _a_ {{Kingdom METAPHYTA}} (embryophytes)
> 5A Cryptophyta
> B Haptophyta
> 6 Rhizaria
> 7 Heterokonta (stramenopiles)
> 8 Ciliophora
> 9 Dinozoa (or Dinophyta)
> 10 Sporozoa
> ----------------------------------------------
> NOTES: Clades 5-10 make up the "SAR" clade (Cavalier-Smith's Chromista
> sensu lato). Clades 4-10 form the photokaryote clade. Clades 3-10
> form Cavalier-Smith's "Neozoa"; Clades 2-10 form Cavalier-Smith's
> "neokaryotes". Clade 3 is "Unikonta" and Clade 3B (Choanozoa and its
>
> two exgroups) form the Opisthokonta clade of which we are a part).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list