[Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Fri Oct 30 12:37:33 CDT 2015


Agreed, just looking for indications that the sources I am using have 
missed any support for this. The marketplace of ideas needs diversity 
from which to choose.  But, again, Kinman did go through the trouble of 
publishing it, it is not an unpublished concept.

Mike

On 10/30/2015 11:25 AM, Dan Lahr wrote:
> 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.
>
> cheers,
>
> dan
>
> __________________________________
> Daniel J. G. Lahr
> PhD, Assist. Prof.
> Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
> Office number: + 55 (11) 3091 0948
> http://www.ib.usp.br/zoologia/lahr/
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>     > From: mivie at montana.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
>

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu




More information about the Taxacom mailing list