[Taxacom] Plantae (was: New paper on fungal higher classification)

Tue May 22 11:29:48 CDT 2018

Hi Paul,

       I've never liked the taxon name Plantae either.  I prefer Metaphyta (for higher plants) and Metazoa (for higher animals), and Eumycota (for true fungi).  These holophyletic taxa are very stable in content, and the names are appropriate.

      Plantae has been applied to so many different combinations of taxa that you don't really know what is meant  without some explanation.  So instead of saying Plantae, and you mean Metaphyta, just say Metaphyta.  If you mean something more inclusive, just say Charophyta and Metaphyta, or the slightly broader Chlorophyta and Metaphyta.  Then you don't need to worry about explaining which Plantae you might be using or being misunderstood.

                --------------Ken

________________________________
From: Paul Kirk <P.Kirk at kew.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:21 AM
To: Kenneth Kinman; Tony Rees
Cc: taxacom
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New paper on fungal higher classification

If the logic to rename the Fungi is sound then the same logic should apply to the Plants, because Linnaeus included the Fungi in the polyphyletic Plants ... any suggestions from the botanists (sensu stricto, excluding mycologists).

Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: 22 May 2018 02:15
To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper on fungal higher classification

Hi Tony,

        I would recommend following the classification of Ruggiero et al., 2015, not only in the ranks used, but also in restricting "Fungi" (to what is probably better called Eumycota).  They say: "Here we take the view that the best demarcation between Protozoa and Fungi lies immediately before the origin of the chitinous wall around vegetative fungal cells and associated loss of phagotrophy. We therefore include microsporidia and rozellids in Protozoa (vegetatively wall-less, typically phagotrophs) not Fungi (vegetatively walled osmotrophs).

       I believe that (restricting Fungi to Eumycota) is what databases like EOL are doing, although I would also encourage them use the name Eumycota, rather than Fungi (which has had a horrible history of polyphyletic dumping).   Personally, I see the inflationary splitting in this 2018 paper as taxonomic noise which probably does more harm than good.  But perhaps there is something of value in there somewhere buried in all the inflationary noise.

       Furthermore, I would add that expanding classifications of Fungi/Eumycota beyond the more traditional bounds would likely result in clashes (and confusion) between the Zoological and Botanical codes.  Would probably be best to nip such problems in the bud.

                     --------------Ken

________________________________
From: Paul Kirk <P.Kirk at kew.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:21 AM
To: Kenneth Kinman; Tony Rees
Cc: taxacom
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New paper on fungal higher classification

If the logic to rename the Fungi is sound then the same logic should apply to the Plants, because Linnaeus included the Fungi in the polyphyletic Plants ... any suggestions from the botanists (sensu stricto, excluding mycologists).

Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: 22 May 2018 02:15
To: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper on fungal higher classification

Hi Tony,

        I would recommend following the classification of Ruggiero et al., 2015, not only in the ranks used, but also in restricting "Fungi" (to what is probably better called Eumycota).  They say: "Here we take the view that the best demarcation between Protozoa and Fungi lies immediately before the origin of the chitinous wall around vegetative fungal cells and associated loss of phagotrophy. We therefore include microsporidia and rozellids in Protozoa (vegetatively wall-less, typically phagotrophs) not Fungi (vegetatively walled osmotrophs).

       I believe that (restricting Fungi to Eumycota) is what databases like EOL are doing, although I would also encourage them use the name Eumycota, rather than Fungi (which has had a horrible history of polyphyletic dumping).   Personally, I see the inflationary splitting in this 2018 paper as taxonomic noise which probably does more harm than good.  But perhaps there is something of value in there somewhere buried in all the inflationary noise.

       Furthermore, I would add that expanding classifications of Fungi/Eumycota beyond the more traditional bounds would likely result in clashes (and confusion) between the Zoological and Botanical codes.  Would probably be best to nip such problems in the bud.

                     --------------Ken

________________________________
From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:45 PM
To: Kenneth Kinman
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper on fungal higher classification

So, is there anything in it that may stand the test of time/eventual uptake, do you (or perhaps others) think?

- Tony

On 20 May 2018 at 10:32, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com<mailto:kinman at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Tony,

         This classification seems to be mostly just raising a lot of known taxa to higher taxonomic levels, and therefore creating a lot of new names.  Especially their new phyla Nuclearida and Fonticulida, created a long time ago as Orders which are grouped together within a Class Cristidiscoidea (see Ruggiero et al.'s 2015 Higher Classification of Organisms at https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC4418965%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=TUT4hyA7CWVfTjHFBJZeBCRIa2TTM2SnDNVYQeDlmbA%3D&reserved=0 ).

         So I guess they think that raising those to phylum status justifies raising Cristidiscoidea to Kingdom level.  But what is even worse is that instead of calling it Cristidiscoidea or some version of that name, they call it Kingdom Nucleariae (based on a genus name, instead of being descriptive).  Just what we don't need--- more Kingdoms in an inflationary classification.

                   -------------Ken

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com<mailto:tonyrees49 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 5:02 PM
To: taxacom
Subject: [Taxacom] New paper on fungal higher classification

For those interested, the following paper crossed my (virtual) desk this
morning:

Tedersoo, L., Sánchez-Ramírez, S., Kõljalg, U. et al., 2018. High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal Diversity (2018 online (?vol.90)): 1-25.
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1007%2Fs13225-018-0401-0&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=ywVZvo%2BS%2Fb4mA05E1dEYpxAGcII11NAouv%2Br60QZ4k8%3D&reserved=0  (online pubication date 16 May
2018)

It contains quite a lot of high level reorganisation of fungal classification, including a new kingdom, Nucleariae, for 2 new phyla, Nuclearida and Fonticulida. I await the views of other fungal persons on the list (some of whom no doubt knew this work prior to
publication) for more expert comments.

Regards to all - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=WYTEK0pwWIfBXGqHwm7VtF90zh%2FxeDAmltITNJ%2FPirU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=2zHBOrWlKgbvVXp4XfGR8o2JVeCPVF54WWDPVbC4EFk%3D&reserved=0
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=A4KRyyR21zcf6tkz%2FIa8azBKlib05R8dyeugNRFduBo%3D&reserved=0
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=2zHBOrWlKgbvVXp4XfGR8o2JVeCPVF54WWDPVbC4EFk%3D&reserved=0
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=2zHBOrWlKgbvVXp4XfGR8o2JVeCPVF54WWDPVbC4EFk%3D&reserved=0
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=A4KRyyR21zcf6tkz%2FIa8azBKlib05R8dyeugNRFduBo%3D&reserved=0
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cp.kirk%40kew.org%7C0ff5306677b44b1b32e408d5bf81684f%7C44892b45194046119753a4b3be4ea7fe%7C0%7C0%7C636625484895831944&sdata=2zHBOrWlKgbvVXp4XfGR8o2JVeCPVF54WWDPVbC4EFk%3D&reserved=0
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.