[Taxacom] Protists and the ICBN [was:Kingdom Protista (minor recoding)]

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Tony,
      Getting late here, but I decided to check the NCBI database to see
how they treated some of these taxa.  They don't even recognized the
term Dinozoa and all their dinoflagellates have botanical endings.  At
least they are consistent on that point.             
        On the other hand, they do recognize Euglenozoa, and most of its
subtaxa have zoological endings, except for Euglenida, which strangely
has a zoological ending itself, but the Orders within it have botanical
endings (-ales).  That seems rather wishy-washy to me.  A phylum level
taxon like Euglenozoa shouldn't have some Orders with zoological endings
and other with botanical endings.      
            --------Ken                        
  
--------------------------------------------------------
Tony.Rees wrote:
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