Taxacom: Protists

[Tony Rees]

PS If you care to post a small sample of the "problem" names that you are
trying to check, it might be helpful to take a look at them, to try to
narrow down your issue/s a bit further - for example are we taking
species names, genera, or higher ranks, or whatever...

Regards - Tony


On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 09:32, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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%7C9eaac1e1f9a54fc06b8508d9eb53b1b9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799566966331353%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hOOZJpv6pZkF7wNtyq4lJaVxIuXWvTVgaKlTHSa9RGQ%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%7C9eaac1e1f9a54fc06b8508d9eb53b1b9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799566966331353%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2FE7AOoyFEqb9rEYNnPNCZs1yWjucr8AiVQzlko5y5tA%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%7C9eaac1e1f9a54fc06b8508d9eb53b1b9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799566966331353%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2FE7AOoyFEqb9rEYNnPNCZs1yWjucr8AiVQzlko5y5tA%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%7C9eaac1e1f9a54fc06b8508d9eb53b1b9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799566966331353%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=6IV2bdW5sQJ1yVYSjojFtcmY8KX7QYfnGbQkG9rHlHM%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%7C9eaac1e1f9a54fc06b8508d9eb53b1b9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637799566966331353%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ZSUPWgZi2I4EsU4nRJtCL4t%2BBcu%2Bx2AXPOGMwP4Ajoo%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
>>
>>