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

Thu Jul 9 15:44:54 CDT 2015

Logically, Reptilia should be given a new name (say Pertilia) if Aves are included in it, for what the paraphyly really amounts to is to show that reptiles don't exist, except as a group of convenience. So, reptiles should just become an informal name for nonavian pertiles. However, systematists are rarely logical ...

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 10/7/15, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
 To: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>, "'Tony Rees'" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 10 July, 2015, 4:54 AM

 Hi Tony and Robin,       
                  I have to disagree.  I
 don't think this was inevitable (or wise or brave).  We
 have long known (since Archaeopteryx) that birds evolved
 from reptiles, but that is not a good reason to subsume one
 into the other.  By such reasoning, we could argue that
 Amphibia and the other tetrapod classes should be subsumed
 into Sarcopterygii.  Or subsuming all the higher plant
 phyla into Phylum Charophyta.  Or how about dumping all the
 insects into the Crustacea.  Such reasoning is just as
 unwise with respect to Aves as it is with these and many
 other examples.  So I don't think it is inevitable that
 birds have to be dumped in with their reptile (dinosaur)
 ancestors, any more than it is would be inevitable that we
 dump tetrapods in with the sarcopterygian fish (or Insecta
 into Crustacea).                           
 ----------------Ken
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > From: releech at telus.net
 > To: tonyrees49 at gmail.com;
 kinman at hotmail.com
 > CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero
 et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living
 Organisms"
 > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015
 10:01:56 -0600
 > 
 >
 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.