[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Sun Dec 19 20:56:49 CST 2010
I have yet to see anything demonstrating that a Phylocode is any better
than a Linnean system for naming entities.
And who among us is trying to classify life without including an
understanding of the tree (or rhizome) of life?
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of murrellze
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:10 PM
To: Kleo Pullin
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
I can't answer your questions, but I am struck by the usefulness of this
discussion in pointing out that 1) classifications are most valuable
when they reflect our knowledge of evolutionary history and 2) the
Phylocode is the best way we currently have to reflect evolutionary
history in a classification system.
The Linnaean classification system is woefully inadequate, as
demonstrated in this discussion thread. Why are we attempting to
classify life in the 21st century without including our understanding of
the "tree of life"?
Kleo Pullin wrote:
> I have a few questions about this discussion:
> 1. Why/how/for what is Protista more useful or convenient?
> 2. And what is the difference between usefulness and convenience--this
thread is titled "Usefulness vs. convenience?"
>>> As for rhodophytes (and glaucophytes),
> Cavalier-Smith includes them in a very broad Kingdom Plantae. Others
> have left them in Protista, but included green algae in Plantae
> (making it equivalent to Viridiplantae).
> 3. Who has left rhodophyta in the Protista?
> Kleo Pullin
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> (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