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

Thu Jul 9 11:37:01 CDT 2015

Mammals coming off of the synapsid lineage are not at all within Reptilia . . . 

My question is, do I now report migratory bird collections to my state herpetologist?

Chris Sagebiel

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 11:16 AM
To: Robin Leech
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"

Perhaps I should look at the paper before jumping in, but why not include mammals under 'reptiles' as well?

John Grehan

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:

> 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.011
> > 9248
> > >
> > >  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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.