[Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 30 12:21:40 CDT 2015

Mike,       Of course they don't (especially those who have been convinced that paraphyletic taxa are unnatural).  It was published 21 years ago, and a lot has been discovered since then.  There was no Phylum Rhizaria until 2002, but it has been widely adopted (as I have in my updated classifications of Kingdom Protista).  Same with Breviatea (2009), Apusozoa (1997), and Loukozoa (1999).  But I still recognize most of the same phyla that I recognized in 1994 (Percolozoa,  Euglenozoa, Rhodophyta, Choanozoa, Dinophyta, Sporozoa, Ciliophora, Cryptophyta, Haptophyta, Heterokonta).   I have made no changes to the phyla in the other Kingdoms since then (except for the  aschelminths).
        Others have the advantage of working in teams and having the backing of their academic institutions, and foundations like NSF.  I  worked on and published Kinman, 1994, on my own with no financial support whatsoever (not that I didn't try to find some), and I continue to do so.  The updates and advice I provide on Taxacom are free, and they are intended to persuade some of those academic teams to make classifications more useful to a variety of end-users of such classifications.  It's intended to be constructive criticism, and suggesting alternatives that I believe would be useful.   
                       ---------------Ken        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> From: mivie at montana.edu
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:22:01 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)
> My question is not in regards to pointing out new phylogenetic info 
> published here and there, or the interesting discussions that sometime 
> occur about those phylogenies. As far as I can see, Kinman does not do 
> phylogenies of novel data.  I am asking about use of the "Kinman 
> System," updates of which we are regularly treated to. Classifications 
> of all of life are cited all the time, and updated in every new general 
> biology textbook, so there is a broad and vibrant market for such 
> classifications.  My question is specifically "Does anyone actually use 
> and cite the Kinman System of rather eclectic choices?"
> Mike


More information about the Taxacom mailing list