[Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help

[Dan Lahr]

Hi all,

I would discourage the use of Cyanoprokaryota.  I can see how it would be
nice to emphasize the distinction between cyanos and the other bacteria,
but that is not the point of nomenclature.  The name evokes "Prokaryote",
which is a term used in classifications that are based on levels of
organization, i.e., could represent a paraphyletic grouping.

We have not achieved a consensus on what the relationships between the
three domains are, but it does not seem that the bacteria and archaea are
more closely related to one another than either is to eukaryotes.

In my classes, I present the problem and address each of the three groups
separately.

Just my 0.02,

Dan

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Sergio Diaz Martinez
<sdiaz at conabio.gob.mx>wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> that's right! thanks for the comment
>
> Regards.
>
> Sergio Díaz
>
> ----- Mensaje original -----
> De: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Para: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Enviados: Viernes, 15 de Marzo 2013 2:42:08
> Asunto: Re: [Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help
>
> From: "Sergio Diaz Martinez" <sdiaz at conabio.gob.mx>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:13 AM
>
> > In addition to my last comment. Cyanoprokaryota was introduced by Komárek
> > & Anagnostidis 1999. I guess Komarek uses the term to support his idea
> > about a separate nomenclatural code. Unless i'm wrong, the cyanobacteria
> > are still included as algae in the  International Code of Nomenclature
> for
> > algae, fungi, and plants. Under this code, the name at the rank of
> > Division for this group must end in -phycota, (not -phyta as Cyanophyta)
> > Article. 16.3. Then Cyanoprokaryota is invalid.
>
> ***
> Yes, the nomenclature of this group is governed by the ICNafp.
> No, under that Code, a name for this group at the rank of Division
> does not have to end in -phycota. That would only be the case if it
> were an "automatically typified name" (a name based on a genus name).
>
> The names Cyanobacteria, Cyanophyta, and Cyanoprokaryota
> all fall under the heading of "descriptive names", and, if there is
> otherwise no obstacle under the rules, can be equally used, no
> matter what rank this group is treated in, or whatever taxonomic
> position it is assigned.
>
> This is somewhat similar to publishing the name Embryopsida
> (in Taxon 61: 1097. 2012) for the land plants, so as to have
> a name ending in -opsida, taken to indicate that it is the name
> of a class. This is perfectly allowed, but the much more familiar-
> sounding Embryophyta could be used at any rank (above that
> of family), if it were validly published (which I believe it wasn't?).
> And indeed, the new name Embryopsida can be used at any
> rank, so also for a subclass, or an order, etc.
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive 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
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive 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
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>



-- 
___________________
Daniel J. G. Lahr, PhD
Assist. Prof., Dept of Zoology,
Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
+ 55 (11) 3091 0948