[Taxacom] Adl et al. on Protista (was: All levels of organisation...)

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 9 12:34:05 CST 2012


Dear All, 
       I was just refreshing my memory about why I referred to it as the "photokaryote clade" (the one which Adl et al. named Diaphoretickes).  This was from Cavalier-Smith's use of the term "photokaryotes" for such a group in 2002, and I see that Taxonomicon also recognizes such a group under that name.  And I now remember why I didn't mention the name Corticata in my 2011 classification.  It was coined by Cavalier-Smith in the same 2002 paper, but it included the Excavates, so it is too broad.
      It is a shame Cavalier-Smith apparently never formally named Photokaryota.  It is based on a well-known morphology (photosynthesis), and is not a funny new name (Diaphoretickes) indicating that it is simply diverse.  It contains the vast majority of photosynthetic organisms, including all higher plants and most photosynthetic protists (except the euglenozoans).  Therefore, I think Photokaryota would be better accepted by a majority of users.     
      One the plus side, Adl et al., 2012, formally used the name Metazoa.  I have also been warming up to the taxon name Archaeplastida, which they proposed in Adl et al., 2005.  Certainly preferable to Plantae which has been variously used as a synonym of Metaphyta, as well various more inclusive clades.   
                  ---------------------Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: kinman at hotmail.com
> To: dpatterson at mbl.edu; tony.rees at csiro.au
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:13:19 +0000
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Adl et al. on Protista (was: All levels of	organisation...)
> 
> 
> Dear All,
>              I did a quick read of Adl et al., 2012, and then compared it to my latest classification of Kingdom Protista (posted here on Taxacom in August 2011, and here's a weblink to that):  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2011-August/073326.html
>         Not surprisingly, there are some clear similiarities, but also differences (especially a bit of paraphyly in mine, namely 2 paraphyletic phyla, while the other 14 phyla are believed to be holophyletic).  Having 2 paraphyletic phyla seems reasonable, especially since their exgroups are major Kingdoms.  Of course, paraphylophobia maintains that only 0 paraphyletic taxa are reasonable, but how does one reason with those unwillingly to compromise at all.  I also prefer to encode many of the intermediate clades and simply note them in the footnotes.  Makes for classifications that are less cluttered for the general user and generally more stable as well.      
>         I don't really understand why Adl et al. felt compelled to propose new names for two of the major clades.  They replaced Unikonta (which is my clade 3) with the rather nebulous name Amorphea.  Even if they had good reasons to reject the name Unikonta, I would want to at least come up with something less vague than Amorphea.   And an even larger clade is renamed Diaphoretickes, which equals my clade containing clades 4-10.  In the footnotes, I called this the "photokaryote clade", but the formal name Corticata seems perfectly fine (even though I don't think that it included Rhizaria when it was proposed).  The name Corticata has an actual morphological meaning (possession of a cortex), while Diaphoretickes only refers to the general diversity of the group (and therefore seems to be just as vague in meaning as Amorphea).  A neologism like that could make many roll their eyes in the years to come, and I can also imagine it being the butt of a few jokes about sweating ticks.         
>                             ------------------Ken   
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:52:48 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] All levels of organisation and manifestation should be acknowledged for the classificatory and evolutionary value that is inherent in them
> From: dpatterson at mbl.edu
> To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> CC: kinman at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> My bad
> I had intended to point you to the 2012 schema: Adl, S. et al., 'The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes', Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x  
> 
> The issue of which system to use goes beyond the initial issue of paraphyly.  
> 
> Paddy
> 
> 
 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list