[Taxacom] Animalia or Metazoa?
kennethkinman at webtv.net
Thu Jul 23 21:35:35 CDT 2009
Well, I waited to see if anyone else would
respond, but nothing yet. I clearly prefer Kingdom Metazoa (higher
animals) as its name and contents are more precise. And now that
Eumetazoa is becoming an increasingly popular subclade, it makes sense
to have it shown as a subclade of Metazoa (not of Animalia).
I guess I just like Meta- as a prefix, since
I also prefer the corresponding Metaphyta for higher plants. I also
prefer the relatively unknown name Metabacteria, instead of
Archaebacteria (much less the dreadful name Archaea). Eubacteria almost
certainly came first, with it being the paraphyletic mother group giving
rise to Metabacteria (a.k.a., the misnomer Archaebacteria). Later came
the chimaeric eukaryotes with their series of endosymbioses to produce
various eukaryotic organelles (mitochondria, plastids, and perhaps even
the nucleus itself). The trouble is that unfortunately many biologists
aren't even aware of the name Metabacteria.
Stephen Thorpe wrote:
Should the clade (kingdom) that results from the subtraction of the
Protozoa from the old "Animalia" still be called Animalia, or Metazoa?
There is no Code to govern this. Protistologists all seem to opt for
Metazoa, but zoologists and general public seem not to want to let go of
Animalia. Is there any literature discussing this issue? Anybody got an
More information about the Taxacom