[Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 22:45:09 CDT 2015


Hi Stephen,

I don't think it is a particularly good idea to attempt to redirect a
discussion on higher classification per se into one of the merits of
studying [higher order] systematics versus alpha taxonomy - if you want to
do this, I suggest you start a new thread under that or a similar topic.

Having said that, I will answer your question "What does the reader want?"
[regarding an encyclopedic entry on species X] by saying "a concise summary
of what is reportedly known about that species". In the example you give,
that would presumably be, not a lot at the present time (although the
characters that distinguish it from closely related taxa might be of
interest to include).

You might also give some thought as to whether every species described
would fulfill Wikipedia's well known "notability" requirement, as I would
have thought that at least some would not (although I think you could make
a better case for all genera). On the other hand, compendia like Fauna
Europaea, Encyclopedia of Life, Atlas of Living Australia etc. would be a
natural home for whatever information could be gleaned about all species
within their remit, whether "notable" by Wikipedia standards or not. So you
might wish to pose the question, how does information from the general
biological literature about any particular species (in particular the
lesser known ones) reach, for example, Encyclopedia of Life, and what can
be done to improve that process. However at the heart of your post is
probably a more basic one, which is who researches the little known taxa in
the first place, and how is their work funded... Again I think, requiring a
topic of its own (and not a new one, probably)...

Best - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On 31 October 2015 at 13:03, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Let's not forget that higher classification is primarily just a way to
> organize species information, many species of which are very poorly known
> (in part because too much funding goes to higher classification). On this
> note, I would like to exhibit an example Wikipedia page for a poorly known
> species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristoreus_flavitarsis). I would
> be very interested if anyone has comments on how to improve pages like
> this. What does the reader want?
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 31/10/15, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)
>  To: "Kenneth Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>
>  Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Saturday, 31 October, 2015, 2:18 PM
>
>  Thanks, Ken! Protista is
>  one area of my data compilation that has
>  definitely needed attention for a while - I had
>  been waiting for things to
>  stabilize
>  somewhat and was possibly not alone in finding the Adl et
>  al
>  classification not very helpful from a
>  taxon management perspective.
>
>  Regards - Tony
>
>  Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>  https://about.me/TonyRees
>
>  On 31 October 2015 at 11:31, Kenneth Kinman
>  <kinman at hotmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>  > Hi Tony,
>  >        You could reduce the number of
>  your phyla in Protista fairly
>  >
>  quickly.  Oomycota, Hyphochytridriomycota, Labyrinthista,
>  and Sagenista are
>  > all heterokonts.
>  Cercozoa and several others are now usually combined into
>  > a Phylum Rhizaria.  I assume
>  Discomitochondria could be eliminated if it is
>  > (as I suspect) the Discoba group
>  (Euglenozoa, Percolozoa, and Loukozoa).
>  >
>  And I believe that Apicomplexa and Sporozoa are still
>  synonyms.
>  >
>    --------Ken
>  >
>  >
>
>  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  > > Date: Sat, 31
>  Oct 2015 09:55:39 +1100
>  > > From: tonyrees49 at gmail.com
>  > > To: bckcdb at istar.ca
>  > > CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] resend Kingdom
>  Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)
>  >
>  >
>  > > On 10/30/2015 7:52 AM, Fred
>  Schueler wrote:
>  > >
>  > > * here's a related question: does
>  any individual systematist other than
>  >
>  Ken
>  > > > keep an updated
>  classification of all life?
>  > >
>  >
>  > >
>  > > Hi
>  Fred, all,
>  > >
>  >
>  > Well, I do - though I try not to introduce any
>  nomenclatural novelties...
>  > > In
>  reality the "classification" aspect is more a
>  placeholder /
>  > scaffolding
>  > > on which to hang my <0.5m genus
>  name listings and is creaky in parts (and
>  > > not totally internally
>  consistent/up-to-date at this time), however if
>  > > interested you can see it here:
>  > > http://www.marinespecies.org/irmng/aphia.php?p=browser
>  (new version; old
>  > > version
>  at
>  > http://www.marine.csiro.au/mirrorsearch/ir_search.list_kingdom)
>  > >
>  > > (At present
>  I do not particularly care for kingdom "Chromista"
>  either,
>  > but
>  > >
>  may have to bow to practices in other systems at some
>  point).
>  > >
>  > >
>  Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>  >
>  > https://about.me/TonyRees
>  > >
>  _______________________________________________
>  > > 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.
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  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