Taxacom: Kingdom Protista (protists)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi All,
        I haven't worked on my Kingdom Protista classification for a while.  But what I used to call Phylum Choanozoa (sensu lato) would probably best be called Archaeopisthokonta since it gave rise to the two major kingdoms of opisthokonts (Animalia and Eumycota/Fungi).  It is marked %% since it is doubly paraphyletic.  Phylum Chlorophyta% is singly paraphyletic (giving rise to one Kingdom Metaphyta (Embryophyta).  Everything else in the classification below is cladistic (coded with the numbers and letters to the left).  Although I am heavily influenced by Cavalier-Smith's research (and his producing classifications with limited paraphyly), I prefer to mark paraphyletic groups with a % symbol rather than a simple *, since a paraphyletic group is just a basal percentage of a larger clade.

                KINGDOM PROTISTA%%%
   1   Euglenozoa
  2A   Percolozoa
   B    Loukozoa
   C   Metamonada
  3A   Amoebozoa

   B   Breviatea
   C   Apusozoa
   D   "Archeopisthokonta" (Choanazoa sensu lato)%%
 _a_   {{Kingdom EUMYCOTA}} (true fungi)
 _b_   {{Kingdom METAZOA, aka ANIMALIA}}
  4A   Glaucophyta
   B   Rhodophyta
   C   Chlorophyta%
 _a_   {{Kingdom METAPHYTA}} (embryophytes)
  5A   Cryptista (cryptophytes)
   B   Haptista (haptophytes)
   6   Rhizaria
   7   Heterokonta (stramenopiles)
   8   Ciliophora
   9   Dinozoa (or Dinophyta)
  10  Sporozoa


----------------------------------------------
NOTES:

Clade 3D is Opisthokonta.

Clade 3 is Unikonta,

Clade 4 is Archaeplastida,

Clade 5 is Hacrobia.

Clades 6-10 make up the "SAR" clade.

Clades 5-10 might be called Chromista "sensu lato".

Clades 4-10 form the Bikonta (aka Photokaryota or Diaphoretickes) clade.

Clades 3-10 form Cavalier-Smith's "Neozoa";

Clades 2-10 form Cavalier-Smith's "neokaryotes".


----------------------------------------------

________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of Tony Rees via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:00 PM
To: Alastair Simpson <Alastair.Simpson at dal.ca>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: Protists

So Alastair, if you were (e.g.) Catalogue of Life or other, and in need of
a "management classification" that works top down (not necessarily
kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order, but equivalents would be useful), how would you
cast the Protist section of the Adl et al. treatment? E.g. would you have a
"kingdom" Protista (noting that this term appears nowhere in the Adl et al.
treatment), or if not, what should be used in its place? Would there be a
lot of smaller groups unplaced in "Biota"...

Just asking because CoL would not be alone in needing a "management
classification", the same applying to e.g. GBIF, ITIS, WoRMS, NBII,
Wikipedia, Wikispecies and many more including numerous national species
recording initiatives, to name but a few.

My feeling always used to be to avoid "kingdom Chromista" for that portion
of the protists but I moved to it-somewhat reluctantly-  in 2017 for CoL
compatibility. Happy to see if there might be a better alternative
available these days...

Best - Tony
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C83007342d11448f4b6f708d9ed21f0f9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637801552304830851%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=d8052ovsyGLi%2BMygOv0OmXZLk0tADycy3ob96grsp8I%3D&reserved=0


On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 10:02, Alastair Simpson <Alastair.Simpson at dal.ca>
wrote:

> Adl et al. 2019 has a few oddities, but generally will closer reflect
> higher taxonomy of eukaryotes as accepted by protistologists writ large
> than will Ruggerio et al, 2015.
>
> For example, approximately no evolutionary/systematic protistologists
> active today* use "Protozoa" as a taxon.  One reason amongst many is that
> Opisthokonta is so widely accepted and is mutually incompatible with
> treating Protozoa (or Protista!) as taxa.
>
> It also turns out that the evidence that Chromista is polyphyletic has
> strengthened markedly in the last couple of years.
>
> Cheers
> Alastair (Simpson)
>
> *Cavalier-Smith himself passed away last year
>