Taxacom: Protists

[Tony Rees]

Hi Scott,

Basically you have to appreciate that there are 2 (if not more) current
"world views" as to what to do with former Protista. According to the
Cavalier-Smith world view, presently adopted in the 2015 paper by Ruggiero
et al (which includes C-S among its authors), they split into 2 kingdoms,
Protozoa and Chromista. However there is alternative view, that of Adl et
al. (the latest iteration being at
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdfdirect%2F10.1111%2Fjeu.12691&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfd354497a4d24f843cdb08d9eb52e713%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799563556449002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UP8WbB2Xd53W2hyL9PZW6kh%2Fq5SzvUMIqBmVmm%2FKT5s%3D&reserved=0) that does
not include either of these names, or indeed any kingdoms outside of
Embryophyta; their "Sar" clade (unranked, but higher than phylum) is
roughly equivalent to C-S's Chromista, but excludes a few key groups...
Also noting that, since the 2015 Ruggiero et al. summary, C-S has continued
to publish on a number of protistan/chromistan groups, updating those areas
of the classification, however without those updates being incorporated
back into any larger summary treatment.

I went through this exercise for IRMNG starting around 4 years back, and
decided to implement the Ruggiero et al. classification scheme so far as
was practicable, updated as necessary, but departing in a few areas where
"accepted practice" seemed to differ - for example treating Rozellids and
Microsporidia as Fungi rather than Protozoa as per recent "fungal"
treatments, and a few other things. If this approach coincides with what
you might wish to do, you will find my current treatment of Protozoa at
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dbrowser%26id&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfd354497a4d24f843cdb08d9eb52e713%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799563556449002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WdwLiSc4fDvLAXAaQMMCtoSASqQqIFQRopLx4Tzrr1M%3D&reserved=0[]=5#focus, and Chromista at
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dbrowser%26id&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfd354497a4d24f843cdb08d9eb52e713%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799563556449002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WdwLiSc4fDvLAXAaQMMCtoSASqQqIFQRopLx4Tzrr1M%3D&reserved=0[]=7#focus . All/most names are
accompanied by relevant documentation e.g. from where I got the name, and
according to which source is it presently considered either a current name
or a synonym, sometimes with additional editorial notes as well.

Of course you can always search for a name at any rank via the IRMNG search
interface at https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dsearch&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfd354497a4d24f843cdb08d9eb52e713%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799563556449002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=dWmpyEdkOrXgIbrPZWYzYgaqk0PedyY90NtgBr0X80I%3D&reserved=0 ;  just remember to
uncheck the "limit to ... genera" box if you are searching for a name at a
higher rank. I cannot guarantee that I have all suprageneric names entered
(in fact I am sure I do not), however you may find this helpful for some
percentage of the names you are desiring to check.

Likewise I cannot guarantee to have verified and/or updated every name
entry in IRMNG at this time, however by viewing the "sources" presented for
each, you will get some insight as to the currency of the information held
for that name.

Hoping the above may be of some value,

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cfd354497a4d24f843cdb08d9eb52e713%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799563556449002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=r%2FRaP%2BN2n78nA8Jh%2BRgEndzPuaiXG5iAF%2BinacqufhE%3D&reserved=0


On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 08:17, Scott Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
wrote:

> I am thinking this will be a pain but I have to figure out how to deal with
> everything that was or is or may be in Protista as I currently have 191
> non-standard and 526 disputed taxa many of which were a part of this group.
> I am not sure what to do with them.
>
> Can someone recommend a Checklist or other publication that is the most
> recent assessment of all things this group please.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Cheers Scott
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
>
> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> Petrópolis, Manaus
> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> Brasil
>
>