[Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)

Dan Lahr dlahr at ib.usp.br
Fri Oct 30 12:25:25 CDT 2015

Classifications are arbitrary, and are thus used (cited) in ways to please
one's own taste.

Certainly if Ken Kinman went through the trouble of publishing his
classifications - which I am fairly certain would get published, as a lot
of less well thought out classifications are - people would use and cite
his system as well.

Do note that I am not defending the Kinman system per se, as I deeply
disagree with his views -- accepting paraphyletic groups is simply absurd
in my view.

However, classifications are arbitrary and I would like to defend his and
everyone's right to have their own personal classification system, well
cited or not. I don't see why not. It's just like your favorite football
team, or color.



Daniel J. G. Lahr
PhD, Assist. Prof.
Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Office number: + 55 (11) 3091 0948

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list