[Taxacom] save Prokaryota!!! (was: Knocking Hennig off his pedestal

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 27 10:20:43 CST 2014

Hi Fred,         There is a definite consensus that Eukaryota is a clade which arose from a single ancestor (possessing a nucleus).  The multiphyletic amalgamation of some of its descendants (picking up organelles such as chloroplasts) would not affect the monophyly of Eukaryota as a whole.                                          -------------Ken                              P.S.  I didn't bring up the Reptilia because it is doubly paraphyletic (and thus messier and a more contentious subject).  However, a paraphyletic Amphibia giving rise to the clade Amniota is another example of a useful paraphyly that should be maintained.  And Amphibia is paraphyletic whether or not one formally categorizes it as Class Amphibia.  Likewise, one is not obligated to categorize Eukaryota, but it is usually labelled as an Empire, Superkingdom, or Domain.   
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:30:33 -0500
> From: bckcdb at istar.ca
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] save Prokaryota!!! (was: Knocking Hennig off his pedestal
> Quoting Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>:
> > "Cladifications" are also often very asymmetric and thus unbalanced  
> > (which can add to instability), making them even harder to remember  
> > (and often harder for the general user to even understand).  This  
> > has resulted in an explosion of new clade names (many of which  
> > eventually turn out to be invalid) as well as a proliferation of  
> > categories that is so extreme that calls for the elimination of  
> > Linnaean categories naturally followed (but one shouldn't abuse a  
> > useful tool like that and then complain when problems arise).
> * well, my objections to categories are not based on such a  
> proliferation, but on the simple Amniote/Reptile/Bird/Mammal  
> situation, and on the incomparability of a category such as "Family"  
> across various higher taxa. Unfortunately, i don't get to write many  
> sytematic listings of species, but since 1990 i've been composing the  
> ones I do without categories, and remarkably little seems to be lost  
> from them.
> >  And it seems to me that Prokaryota (a paraphyletic group of  
> > species) is just as valid and important as Eukaryota (a holophyletic  
> > group of species).
> * but if Eukaryota are a symbiotic amalgamation of Prokaryote  
> lineages, how does the concept of "monophyly" apply - aren't the  
> Eukaryotes supposed to be ancestrally multiphyletic? (since  
> "polyphyletic" is already taken for its conventional meaning).
> fred.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>           Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> Bishops Mills Natural History Centre - http://pinicola.ca/bmnhc.htm
> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
> Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
>           South Nation Basin Art & Science Book
>           http://pinicola.ca/books/SNR_book.htm
>      RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
>    on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
>     (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list