[Taxacom] EukRef (was: resend Kingdom Protista)

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 30 14:25:52 CDT 2015


    I agree.  The organisms involved are protists, so we should call it Kingdom Protista.  And I'm just as willing to divide it into Subkingdoms Protozoa and Chromista.   The fact that noone calls themselves Chromistologists merely shows that those who study chromists regard chromists as a subgroup of protists (Protista), and that is the point I was actually making.   
             ----------------Ken                P.S.  The reason there are no Avesologists is simply because Ornithology and those other sciences were named with Greek roots, while the taxa they studied were in Latin.  


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:00:19 -0600
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] EukRef (was: resend Kingdom Protista)
From: kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com
To: kinman at hotmail.com
CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The point is that what a group of people that study a group call themselves has no bearing whatsoever on whether the taxon that name refers to is necessary or valid or not, nor even whether it exists or not. No one calls themselves a Chromistologist just like no one calls themselves an Avesologist. This is entirely irrelevant to what we call the taxa that are studied or how they are divided. 

But maybe I am alone here in thinking that the most useful classification is one that is based on the organisms involved, and not one based on what the people who study the organisms call themselves.



On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:












Hi Daniel G.,                 Actually I find you counterargument a little  peculiar.  Terms like Ornithology, Entomology, Mmalacology, and Herpetology are based on Greek stems, while the taxa they study must be in Latin.   Anyway, you seem to have missed my point.  The point is that people who study Chromists never call themselves Chromistologists, but rather Protistologists (or sometimes just botanists, for the photosynthetic chromists).  Thus helping support my suggestion that we recognize a Kingdom Protista (with subkingdoms Protozoa and Chromista).   If you do a google search for Chromistology or Chromistologist, I bet you will get few, if any, hits.
Hi Dan Lahr,
       I found it interesting that you said EukRef was focusing on "microbes".   Most people call eukaryotic microbes "protists", and thus the continued use of Kingdom Protista and those who study them protistologists.  As Richard said, we sometimes need a  "down-to-earth and messy combination of shared and serial descent to identify such natural groups."  I have always thought it absurb that strict cladists believe it possible to classify all organisms without some paraphyly.  
                             -------------------Ken


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:15:10 -0600
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] EukRef (was: resend Kingdom Protista)
From: kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com
To: kinman at hotmail.com
CC: dlahr at ib.usp.br; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

"After all, there are thousands of Protistologists, but I've never EVER heard anyone calling themselves Chromistologists."

What a peculiar argument. 

How do you feel about the fact that ornithologists don't study the taxon Ornithos but Aves, and that palaeontologists don't study the taxon Palaeonta but (for instance) the Avesmetatarsalia? 

Not to mention Entomologists, Malacologists, Herptologists, and so on. 

Obviously something needs to be done.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:






Hi Dan,                     Cavalier-Smith's classifications are very good and very informative, but sometimes plagued by peculiar taxon names and unnecessary splitting (e.g., Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista, instead of the single Kingdom Protista).  After all, there are thousands of Protistologists, but I've never EVER heard anyone calling themselves Chromistologists.

          I checked out the EukRef website you mentioned, and I really like their dynamic pie-charts.  Although they don't use Linnaean categories, I was pleasantly surprised that they use Metazoa instead of Animalia.  I'm under the impression that they wanted to only use clades, but they do use Crustacea (which everyone knows is paraphyletic with respect to Insecta).  And I continue to advise against using Hexapoda, as it is probably polyphyletic (which we all agree is bad).

         However, their "classification" of plants is rather peculiar.  Especially dividing Archaeplastida into Chlorophyta and Streptophyta (charophytes + Embryophyceae), when charophytes are very often classified within Chlorophyta.  Furthermore, how many of the charophytes are included in Streptophyta varies widely from classification to classification.   And why Embryophyceae, when they could use Embryophyta or Metaphyta?   I am obviously happy they didn't use Plantae, but very sad that they didn't use Viridiplantae instead of the vague and problematic Streptophyta when they subdivided Archaeplastida.

         -------------------Ken

 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list