[Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 15:47:00 CDT 2015
2015
What about 'Avitilia'?
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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