[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Sun Dec 19 20:37:49 CST 2010

Hi all.

Anyone for an 11-kingdom treatment of Eukaryotes? See Table 2 in http://comenius.susqu.edu/bi/202/DOMAINS/default.htm  

Regards - Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Monday, 20 December 2010 10:07 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
> Hi Kleo,
>         Actually, you would be surprised how many people
> still classify Rhodophyta outside of Plantae (but not outside of
> "plants", since they are clearly "plants"). One such major website is
> that of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. If you
> click on the link below, you will see that although they don't actually
> use the term Protista on this Eukaryota systematics page, they do have a
> bunch of  "protist" groups (including Rhodophyta and others) but with
> the four Kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, and Chromista) spelled in
> capital letters. And I was VERY happy to see that their Kingdom Plantae
> is the same as my Kingdom Metaphyta (land plants, i.e. embryophytes). So
> they also exclude the green algae (Chlorophyta) from Kingdom Plantae
> (Metaphyta) as well as the Rhodophyta.
>         And if you look at the Kingdom Protista
> classification that I posted here a few hours ago, you will see that I
> include Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, and Chlorophyta in a broader plant
> clade with the exgroup {{Metaphyta}}. So I do consider them all plants.
> If you go broader than that, it gets "iffy" whether other "plants" are
> closely related or not. Maybe the haptophytes and cryptophytes are (if
> the tree of Minge et al, 2009 is accurate in showing them as sister
> group to Glaucophyta). But some other algae (part of "plants" sensu
> lato), such as  Chrysophyceae, Phaeophyceae, and Xanthophyceae, are in
> Phylum Heterokonta and not part of the plant clade at all.  I was rather
> shocked that the Encyclopedia of Life  seems to include Chrysophyceae in
> Plantae.  YIKES!!!  I didn't think anybody did that any more.
>                     ---------Ken
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/eukaryotasy.html
> P.S. I am obviously one of those skeptics who have long regarded
> Chromista as an inconclusive (even doubtful) grouping, even though it
> seemed based on cladistically reliable data (including molecular).  Now
> after almost 30 years, it finally seems to be falling apart, and having
> been raised to Kingdom status, I would also call it inconvenient.  All
> those textbooks with Kingdom Chromista will probably have to soon be
> rewritten.   And I expect the Three Kingdom classification will
> eventually also fall out of favor, when it becomes clear that there is
> nothing "archaic" about "Archaebacteria" ("Archaea").  And that is
> something Cavalier-Smith and I have always agreed upon, and he thinks
> that they evolved even later than I do.  So it is seems odd that he
> never adopted the name Metabacteria for them.  Oh well.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Kleo wrote:
>      Also, anyone know who is classifying Rhodophyta as other than
> plants these days?
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list