Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

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

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 12:52:57 CDT 2015 

Mammals may be on a different lineage to that of 'reptiles', but then birds
and dinosaurs may be said to be on a different lineage to that of
'reptiles' as well. I guess the point I was trying to make (and that Ken
made it more effectively) is that it seems that 'reptiles' has been rescued
from paraphyly by expanding its coverage to include birds (along with the
extinct dinosaurs). If synapsids were the next sistergroup to the new
'reptiles', one could conceivably expand the group reptiles to include
mammals as well. Personally I have no problem expanding the term reptiles
to include all the classic reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes) along with
crocodilians and dinosaurs (including birds), but the expansion would seem
to be purely arbitrary (although it does rescue the term from paraphyly by
keeping birds out. Does that make rational sense or am I still off the
rails?.

John

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Sagebiel, J. Chris <
sagebiel at austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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