[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Tony Rees
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 23:59:15 CST 2017
Definitions from Terms Used in Bionomenclature: The Naming of Organisms and
Plant Communities ...edited by D. L. Hawksworth
here:
https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monobasic&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees
On 18 December 2017 at 00:32, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
> Notice that this definition of "monotypic" is unequivocally nomenclatural
> (appropriately so, I suppose, given its source): "monotypic genus. A genus
> for which a single binomial is validly published (Art. 38.6) (see also
> unispecific)". The definition was provided in the ICNafp only for the
> purposes of Article 38.5-6 allowing simultaneous publication of a genus and
> a species description (the description being the same).
>
> This nomenclatural definition is contrary to the very common and standard
> usage in floras and other botanical works along the lines of "Ginkgo is a
> monotypic genus, with only a single extant species". This common and
> standard usage is "taxonomic", meaning there is only a single currently
> "recognized/accepted" species in the genus. Even leaving aside the issue
> of "monotypy" and extinct taxa, Ginkgo (and other prominent examples of
> monotypic genera, like Welwitschia) are not monotypic by the ICNafp
> definition.
>
> It's hard to think of a situation (outside the Code itself or a
> nomenclatural analysis of very rare cases) in which one would want or need
> to use "monotypic" as defined narrowly and nomenclaturally to mean a genus
> for which only a single species had ever been validly published.
>
> And note that the Code seemingly defines "unispecific" by not defining it
> but providing a definition that in theory should replace and mean something
> different than the very narrow nomenclatural definition of "monotypic":
> "unispecific. [Not defined] – with a single species." The "[Not defined]"
> is explained: "The particular usage of a few other words, not defined in
> the Code, is also indicated; these are italicized in the list below and are
> accompanied by editorial explanation of their use."
>
> Googling "monotypic" one finds contrary definitions, a few with the new
> narrow nomenclatural definition, but others, like this one a
> Merriam-Webster, reflection the more common usage: "including a single
> representative —used especially of a genus with only one species".
>
> I thought I'd hit the jackpot with a Wikipedia disambiguation page for
> "Monotype", but:
>
> A monotype is a print made by drawing or painting on a smooth,
> non-absorbent surface.
> Monotype may also refer to:
> Monotypic taxon, a taxonomic group containing only one
> immediately subordinate taxon
> Monotype Corporation, a typesetting and typeface design
> company
> Monotype System - the typesetting machine made by the
> Monotype Corporation
>
> The joke's on us... ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mary Barkworth
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 6:15 AM
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
>
> Hurray! Thank you Paul. It was probably suggested to me by someone as it
> is not the sort of thing I would have gone out on a limb over.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:37 AM
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
>
> Well, "unispecific" is endorsed by the ICNafp, see the Glossary:
> http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=glo
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Barkworth" <Mary.Barkworth at usu.edu>
> To: "Les Watling" <watling at hawaii.edu>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
>
>
> > and then there is unispecific. No endorsement for it but we used it in
> > the FNA grass volumes in response to comments that monotypic was not
> > always appreopriate.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Les
> > Watling <watling at hawaii.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:34:51 PM
> > To: Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >
> > Blackwelder, (1967), p. 517:
> >
> > "If a new genus is proposed for a single species, that species is
> > automatically the genotype, and the genus is said to be *monobasic*.
> > (The term *monotypic* is sometimes used in this sense, buit it is
> > inappropriate and should be avoided.)"
> >
> > News to me..... should have paid closer attention in class!
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> >
> > Les Watling
> > Professor, Dept. of Biology
> > 216 Edmondson Hall
> > University of Hawaii at Manoa
> > Honolulu, HI 96822
> > Ph. 808-956-8621
> > Cell: 808-772-9563
> > e-mail: watling at hawaii.edu
> >
> > Tweets from @WernerTwertzog:
> >
> > I do not own a selfie stick because the self does not exist.
> >
> > When a tree falls in a forest, it does, of course, make a sound,
> > because, you have to realize, its not all about you.
> >
> > -- William
> > Pannapacker
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM, <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest
> >> into your reply.
> >> ____________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >> 1. Re: monotypic or monobasic (Lynn Raw)
> >> 2. Re: monotypic or monobasic (Stephen Thorpe)
> >> 3. Three kinds of bacteria (Negibacteria the oldest) (Kenneth Kinman)
> >> 4. monotypic monobasic (John Grehan)
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:18:15 +0100
> >> From: Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
> >> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> Message-ID: <FF14C7A8-C240-4BDD-9F72-95BDFF711725 at afriherp.org>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>
> >> From what I understand, monobasic is a term used in chemistry while
> >> monotypic is a term used in taxonomy and nomenclature. Definitions of
> >> both terms are available in good dictionaries or even on the web.
> >>
> >> Lynn Raw
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> > On 14 Dec 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
> >> > <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Monotypy is a nomenclatural term (ICZN) in relation to the fixation
> >> > of a
> >> type species of a new genus, but the grammatical variant monotypic
> >> has broader meaning. It is perhaps ugly to have variants of the same
> >> term with different meanings (one broader than the other)!
> >> >
> >> > Stephen
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> > On Thu, 14/12/17, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> > To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> > Received: Thursday, 14 December, 2017, 9:32 PM
> >> >
> >> > The correct term should be
> >> > "unispecific".
> >> >
> >> > The term "monotypic" sounds
> >> > nomenclatural, and
> >> > indeed has been defined
> >> > as a nomenclatural term
> >> > in the ICNafp. By
> >> > contrast, "unispecific" represents
> >> > a taxonomic concept
> >> >
> >> > Sometimes "monospecific" can be
> >> > found, but this
> >> > is ugly, as it is a hybrid
> >> > combining a Greek and a
> >> > Latin word
> >> > element.
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >
> >> > From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> > To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "John Grehan"
> >> > <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I expect that these terms don't have
> >> > very precise definitions and that
> >> >> there
> >> > may be a fair amount of variation in exact usage. My feeling is
> >> > that
> >> >> "monobasic" isn't
> >> > used much any more. It presumably means "with a single
> >> >
> >> >> basis", i.e. "based on a
> >> > single species". Monotypic presumably means "based
> >> >
> >> >> on a single type", though
> >> > "type" should, I think, be interpreted in the
> >> >> general sense, not as types in the
> >> > nomenclatural sense (i.e. type species
> >> >> or type specimens), which is a possible
> >> > source of confusion. So, a genus
> >> >> with
> >> > just one species regarded as valid would be monotypic, even if the
> >> >> single species had synonyms (and
> >> > therefore more than one type specimen
> >> >> included). All nominal genera obviously
> >> > have only one type species, whether
> >> >> or
> >> > not the genus is monotypic! Monotypy is the act of basing a new
> >> > genus on
> >> >> a single species. I have
> >> > never seen or heard the term "monobasy"! I also
> >> >
> >> >> don't think that these terms apply
> >> > to species, i.e. basing a new species on
> >> >> a single specimen doesn't make the
> >> > species mono-anything!
> >> >> Stephen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> >> On Thu, 14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Subject:
> >> > [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >> To:
> >> > "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> >> Received: Thursday, 14 December, 2017,
> >> > 6:07 PM
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear
> >> > colleagues,
> >> >>
> >> >> I have
> >> > seen the terms 'monotypic' and
> >> >>
> >> > 'monobasic' applied to genera with a
> >> >> single species. I am curious to know if there is a technically
> >> >> correct choice for the use of these terms for such genera. If
> >> >> anyone may be able to enlighten me as to the rules, if any,
> >> >> governing how these terms are properly used I would be most
> >> >> grateful.
> >> >>
> >> >> John Grehan
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>
> >> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> >>
> >> >> Send Taxacom mailing
> >> > list submissions
> >> >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >>
> >> >> Nurturing Nuance
> >> > while Assaulting
> >> >> Ambiguity for 30 Some
> >> > Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>
> >> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
> >> > searched at:
> >> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> >>
> >> >> Send Taxacom mailing
> >> > list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
> >> > visit:
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list
> >> > at:
> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >>
> >> >> Nurturing Nuance
> >> > while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > ---
> >> >> Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op
> >> > virussen door AVG.
> >> >> http://www.avg.com
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> >
> >> > Send Taxacom mailing list
> >> > submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To subscribe or
> >> > unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance while
> >> > Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> >
> >> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> >> > 1987-2017.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:13:15 +0000 (UTC)
> >> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> To: Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
> >> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> Message-ID: <879602756.4731497.1513282395027 at mail.yahoo.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >>
> >> "Monobasic" certainly is (or was) also used in taxonomy, but perhaps
> >> not so much now, and any Google search only turns up the chemistry
> meaning.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> On Fri, 15/12/17, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Paul van Rijckevorsel"
> >> < dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> >> Received: Friday, 15 December, 2017, 8:18 AM
> >>
> >> From what I understand, monobasic
> >> is a term used in chemistry while monotypic is a term used in
> >> taxonomy and nomenclature. Definitions of both terms are available
> >> in good dictionaries or even on the web.
> >>
> >> Lynn Raw
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> > On 14 Dec 2017, at 09:49, Stephen Thorpe
> >> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Monotypy
> >> is a nomenclatural term (ICZN) in relation to the fixation of a
> >> type species of a new genus, but the grammatical variant monotypic
> >> has broader meaning. It is perhaps ugly to have variants of the same
> >> term with different meanings (one broader than the other)!
> >> >
> >> > Stephen
> >> >
> >> >
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> > On Thu, 14/12/17, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Subject:
> >> Re: [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic >
> >> To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> > Received: Thursday, 14
> >> December, 2017,
> >> 9:32 PM
> >> >
> >> > The
> >> correct term should be
> >> >
> >> "unispecific".
> >> >
> >> > The term "monotypic" sounds
> >> > nomenclatural, and
> >> >
> >> indeed has been defined
> >> > as a
> >> nomenclatural term
> >> > in the ICNafp. By
> >> > contrast, "unispecific"
> >> represents
> >> > a taxonomic concept
> >> >
> >> > Sometimes
> >> "monospecific" can be
> >> > found,
> >> but this
> >> > is ugly, as it is a hybrid
> >> > combining a Greek and a
> >> > Latin word
> >> >
> >> element.
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original
> >> Message -----
> >> >
> >> >
> >> From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> > To: "taxacom"
> >> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; > "John Grehan"
> >> > <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:44 AM > Subject: Re:
> >> [Taxacom] monotypic or > monobasic > > >> I expect that these
> >> terms don't have > very precise definitions and that >> there >
> >> may be a fair amount of variation in exact usage. My feeling > is
> >> that >> "monobasic" isn't > used much any more. It presumably means
> >> "with a single > >> basis", i.e. "based on a > single species".
> >> Monotypic presumably means "based > >> on a single type", though
> >> > "type" should, I think, be interpreted in the >> general sense,
> >> not as types in the > nomenclatural sense (i.e. type species >> or
> >> type specimens), which is a possible > source of confusion. So, a
> >> genus >> with > just one species regarded as valid would be
> >> monotypic, even > if the >> single species had synonyms (and >
> >> therefore more than one type specimen >> included). All nominal
> >> genera obviously > have only one type species, whether >> or >
> >> not the genus is monotypic! Monotypy is the act of basing a > new
> >> genus on >> a single species. I have > never seen or heard the term
> >> "monobasy"! I also > >> don't think that these terms apply > to
> >> species, i.e. basing a new species on >> a single specimen doesn't
> >> make the > species mono-anything!
> >> >> Stephen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> >> On Thu, 14/12/17, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Subject:
> >> >
> >> [Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
> >> >>
> >> To:
> >> > "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> >> Received: Thursday, 14
> >> December, 2017, > 6:07 PM >>
> >>
> >> >> Dear
> >> >
> >> colleagues,
> >> >>
> >> >> I have
> >> > seen the
> >> terms 'monotypic' and
> >> >>
> >> > 'monobasic' applied to genera with a >> single species. I am
> >> curious to know if >> there is a technically correct >> choice
> >> for the use of these terms for >> such genera. If anyone may be
> >> able to >> enlighten me as to the rules, if any, >> governing how
> >> these terms are >> properly used I would be most >> grateful.
> >> >>
> >> >> John
> >> Grehan
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>
> >> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be >> searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org >> >> Send Taxacom mailing > list
> >> submissions >> to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >> To subscribe or
> >> unsubscribe via the >> Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> You can reach the person managing the >> list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >> >> Nurturing Nuance > while
> >> Assaulting >> Ambiguity for 30 Some > Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >>
> >> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be > searched at:
> >> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >> >>
> >> >> Send Taxacom
> >> mailing
> >> > list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >> To subscribe or
> >> unsubscribe via the Web, > visit:
> >> >>
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list > at:
> >> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >>
> >> >> Nurturing
> >> Nuance
> >> > while Assaulting Ambiguity for
> >> 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > ---
> >> >> Deze e-mail
> >> is gecontroleerd op
> >> > virussen door
> >> AVG.
> >> >> http://www.avg.com
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be > searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org > > Send Taxacom mailing list >
> >> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu > To subscribe or
> >> unsubscribe via the Web,
> >> visit:
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the person managing the list
> >> at:
> >> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> >
> >> > Nurturing Nuance
> >> while
> >> > Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some
> >> Years, 1987-2017.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >> >
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org > > Send Taxacom mailing list
> >> submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu > To subscribe or
> >> unsubscribe via the Web,
> >> visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> > You can reach the person managing the list
> >> at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu > > Nurturing Nuance while
> >> Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 3
> >> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:21:14 +0000
> >> From: Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> >> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Subject: [Taxacom] Three kinds of bacteria (Negibacteria the oldest)
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <CY4PR11MB1480650BB2E1588796035B5FC10B0 at CY4PR11MB1480.
> >> namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
> >>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >> I am puzzled why the prokaryotes are still classified as
> >> Domains Bacteria and Archaea. The most fundamental divide should
> >> actually be between Negibacteria (which possess the outer
> >> negibacterial membrane) on the one hand, and the Posibacteria and
> >> Archaebacteria (which have lost that
> >> outer membrane). Cavalier-Smith 1998 proposed the name Unibacteria for
> >> Posibacteria + Archaebacteria (since they have only the one membrane,
> >> not two).
> >> Cavalier-Smith, 2006 ("Rooting the tree of life by transition
> >> analyses") shows that Negibacteria are the oldest of the three taxa, and
> >> Archaebacteria are actually the youngest. I am pretty sure that is why
> >> eubacterial trees are so screwed up, because using Archaebacteria as
> >> the outgroup will misroot them (Archaebacteria are actually an
> >> ingroup, not an outgroup).
> >> Anyway, the names Negibacteria and Posibacteria were proposed
> >> 30 years ago (Cavalier-Smith, 1987), and they are excellent names
> >> which subdivide the Eubacteria into two large and important taxa. So
> >> why aren't they being used in databases like Catalogue of Life and
> >> NCBI's Taxonomy Browser, etc. ? The Three Domain classification of
> >> life is outdated and should have been discarded a long time ago.
> >> -----------------Ken Kinman Cavalier-Smith, 2006:
> >> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=
> >> PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4
> >> Evolutionary relationships among the four major kinds o | Open-i<
> >> https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=
> >> PMC1586193_1745-6150-1-19-2&req=4>
> >> openi.nlm.nih.gov
> >> Evolutionary relationships among the four major kinds of cell. The
> >> horizontal red arrow indicates the position of the universal root as
> >> inferred from the first
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 4
> >> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:23:42 -0500
> >> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> Subject: [Taxacom] monotypic monobasic
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <CADN0ud1U14x+Kqubn9W1YKFyDrOCbptMt0NJE69_
> >> VcyTZFFTjA at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >>
> >> My thanks for the various responses. Much appreciated.
> >>
> >> John Grehan
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
> 1987-2017.
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 140, Issue 11
> >> ****************************************
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> > subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> > subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >
> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list