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

[Tony Rees]

By the way, subsequent to adopting Chromista, in IRMNG this year I also
dropped phyla Gymnospermophyta and Magnoliophyta and replaced them with
Tracheophyta, for the same reason. More complete list of changes here:
http://www.irmng.org/download.php (under "IRMNG release notes").

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On 23 May 2018 at 10:26, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ken, all,
>
> The IUCN has (e.g.) angiosperms under Kingdom Plantae, Phylum
> Tracheophyta, Class Magnoliopsida, which is consistent with the Catalogue
> of Life current (2017) edition (classification based on Ruggiero et al.,
> 2015 in this area at least).  Angiospermae is a "superclass" in that
> classification (not a "Linnaean rank") and Magnoliophyta is no longer
> recognised at phylum level. So I don't think you can criticize IUCN on that
> score. Since Ruggiero et al.'s classification is supposed to be reviewed
> and adjusted at intervals with new information, at least if other systems
> are compliant with it there is a level of consistency and interoperability
> introduced, with a likelihood of tracking additional taxonomic changes in
> the future. Whether folk agree with, and/or are familiar with, that
> classification is a different issue of course.
>
> I am not particularly enamoured with "Chromista", for example, but have
> introduced it into my own system within the last couple of years for
> exactly the reasons stated above. At some point it makes sense to go with
> the "critical mass" where this exists, until the latter changes at least.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
>
>
> On 23 May 2018 at 03:49, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>      I also just went to the IUCN website, and couldn't find results for
>> either Angiospermae or Magnoliophyta.  Turns out it only gives results for
>> Magnoliopsida.  They need to build a better search, so that major synonyms
>> are included.
>>
>>
>