[Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help

Mon Mar 18 16:21:37 CDT 2013

Hi Ken,

I am familiar with your views on strictly monophyletic classifications.  I
personally find the discussion constructive for science.  However, I have
not been convinced that allowing paraphyletic classifications is a good
solution, but this is not the place to go into the gritty details.
Therefore, I stick to the general convention of naming exclusively
monophyletic entities.

Dividing life into Prokaryota and Eukaryota is unsatisfactory, because
these are grades and do not lead to any objectivity, and do not reflect
things we know about the true nature of the critters.

There may surely be a possibility that the root of life is within bacteria,
which would make eukaryotes and archaea simply branches on the bacterial
tree.  If so, then a lot of bacterial groups would need to be renamed,
because our understanding of the true diversity will remain restrictive and
flawed if we do not change the names.

The system allows relabeling when relabeling is needed.  The Woesian
revolution has shown that relabeling was needed, and relabeling ensued.

Dan

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi Dan,
>
>            I too would discourage the use of Cyanoprokaryota, since
> Cyanobacteria is a perfectly good term, well-known, and widely
> used.  However, I have no problem with Prokaryota even though it not
> only COULD represent a paraphyletic grouping, but almost certain DOES.
> Cyanobacteria are paraphyletic with respect to eukaryotic plastids,
> Eubacteria are paraphyletic with respect to mitochondria, and an
> archaebacterium (or archaebacteria close relative) probably gave rise to
> the first eukaryote.
>
>       However, that Empire Prokaryota is paraphyletic certainly didn't
> bother Ernst Mayr, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.  What does
> bother me is the notion that splitting prokaryotes into two different
> domains (originally called Urkingdoms) somehow eliminated the paraphyly,
> when what it seems to have done is created two high-level paraphyletic
> groups where there was originally just one.  The Three Urkingdoms were
> seriously flawed, and morphing them into Domains (and changing their names)
> only masked the problems.  And the differences between the Eubacteria and
> Archaebacteria aren't as numerous and fundamental as they were originally
> made out to be.
>
>       Anyway, Empires Prokaryota and Eukaryota divide life into two
> fundamentally different kinds of life, while the Three Domains just
> obscures this (and caused a lot of other confusion in the process).  Of
> course, the discovery of Archaebacteria was an important one, but it was
> overly-hyped, given too high a rank and the name was also very unfortunate
> (no real evidence that it they are more "archaic" than Eubacteria, while
> Cavalier-Smith provides lots of evidence that Eubacteria were around long
> before the so-called Archaebacteria/Archaea).
>
>               ----------------My two cents worth,
>                                                    Ken
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:27:00 -0300
> > From: dlahr at ib.usp.br
> > To: sdiaz at conabio.gob.mx
> > CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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