[Taxacom] monotypic or monobasic
Tony Rees
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 18 00:01:51 CST 2017
In the message below I tried internationalizing the links but they do not
seem to work so well - the ones I actually used are here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-UcQQC&q=monobasic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qky7_6-UcQQC&q=monotypic#v=snippet&q=monotypic&f=false
- Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees
On 18 December 2017 at 16:59, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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