Taxacom: Kingdom Protista (protists)

Fri Feb 11 13:11:38 CST 2022

Ken's treatment as "Kingdom Protista" more-or-less coincides with what I
was using prior to moving to the "Protozoa, Chromista" approach of Ruggiero
et al, 2015, based on the involvement of Cavalier-Smith I presume. I
wonder, given that Tom Cavalier-Smith is no longer on the scene, whether an
upgrade of the Ruggiero et al. treatment (designed for use at Catalogue of
Life and therefore GBIF, etc.) might appear in which Kingdom Chromista is
no longer supported... in which case I will change back!

The only problem I see with "Protista" is that it is traditionally
associated with single celled organisms, and some groups such as brown
algae (Chromista according to Cavalier-Smith) depart from that concept
fairly spectacularly... However I am prepared to treat them as "honorary
protists" (Margulis et al. would call them all "Protoctists" anyway) if
that is required.

As you can see I am not averse to a spot of paraphyly when expedient. After
all we are all fishes, aren't we, and fishes are all amoebas (or maybe
choanoflagellates, or something)...

Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce227d7dd511f4492fea108d9ed925e21%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637802035173316588%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=daOgg2bg2B2UnhYWAS%2F3A8GBxckiHwg11FXirLg8b20%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce227d7dd511f4492fea108d9ed925e21%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637802035173316588%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=eS9lxYexPDXNjbpoGK6zSGtSyTyGwlovmKKPweMBCuQ%3D&reserved=0

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 at 16:47, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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%7Ce227d7dd511f4492fea108d9ed925e21%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637802035173316588%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=eS9lxYexPDXNjbpoGK6zSGtSyTyGwlovmKKPweMBCuQ%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
> >
>
>