[Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"

[Robin Leech]

Tony, 
Probably inevitable - the more we find out, the closer the two (reptiles and birds) seem to be. 
Robi

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Rees
Sent: July-09-15 1:10 AM
To: Kenneth Kinman
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"

I note that (class) Aves has now been subsumed into class Reptilia for the first time - brave or inevitable??

- Tony

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Stephen,                         My biggest problem with this
> classification (and many others) is that the subtaxa within a taxon 
> are alphabetically arranged, which automatically and immediately 
> affects their naturalness from the start.  Paleognathae is thus placed 
> after Neognathae, and worse yet Aves is placed before all the other 
> reptiles.  The Superclass Angiospermae is a mess, which for some 
> reason they only classify as a single Class.  Therefore, the subtaxa 
> are an unnatural mess.  Although I nitpick about the details of the 
> cladistic classifications of angiosperms, at least they are fairly natural (even with their unnatural rejection of a
> few very natural and useful taxa).                              Neomycota
> is listed as Dikarya, so it comes before Eomycota.  And they don't 
> even mention the name Eumycota (which has always been more informative 
> than "Fungi").  The mammal orders Cingulata and Pilosa aren't listed 
> together at all, and how many non-mammalogists even know what animals 
> those taxa include?  And totally separating Archaebacteria from their 
> relatives Posibacteria is a horrible oversight that has plagued 
> classifications for well over 20 years.
> ---------------Ken----------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------
>
> > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:11:57 -0700
> > From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> > To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; tonyrees49 at gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
>  Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >
> > The problem with it being "followed in future by both ITIS and 
> > Catalogue
> of Life" is that new developments, based on scientific evidence, will 
> not be considered (at least not until some big revised version of the 
> present paper is published). So, bioinformatics and science part ways for a while.
> It is really just a case of "choose your own classification", and if 
> you wish to choose to follow Ruggiero et al.'s paper, you can, but 
> there may be better alternatives.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 9/7/15, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Subject: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
> Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >  To: "taxacom" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >  Received: Thursday, 9 July, 2015, 12:52 PM
> >
> >  Dear Taxacomers,
> >
> >  Since I did not see this mentioned on Taxacom earlier  (perhaps I 
> > missed  it), list members may be interested to know that Michael  
> > Ruggiero et al.'s  paper "A Higher Level Classification of All 
> > Living  Organisms" has been out  in PLOS One since 20 April 2015, 
> > the link is here:
> >
> >
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119248
> >
> >  This is an internally consistent treatment of "all" extant
> >  taxa down to the
> >  level of Order (in most cases), to be followed in future by
> >  both ITIS and
> >  Catalogue of Life I understand. For those interested in
> >  going further to
> >  the level of family, I have come across a spreadsheet with
> >  the latter
> >  information prepared by the same authors (possibly slightly
> >  earlier
> >  version) labelled "GGI family data" at http://ggi.eol.org/downloads .
> >
> >  Of course the above treatments do not include fossil
> >  orders/families but
> >  maybe these will be in scope at some point in the future
> >  (??)
> >
> >  Hoping this is of interest to at least some Taxacom
> >  readers,
> >
> >  Best regards - Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.