[Taxacom] Revisions needed? (was: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Stephen,       I just took a look at this, and I assume that your objection is that Neuropterida is holometabolous, and therefore taking it out means that the remainder needs to be named something other than Holometabola.  So I would agree that this needs to be either explained or corrected.  However, rather than throwing it into the rubbish bin, I think this classification could just use some immediate attention (not 5 years from now).                          ---------------Ken           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:37:36 -0700
> From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> To: rjensen at saintmarys.edu; Richard.Zander at mobot.org; releech at telus.net
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher	Level	Classification of All Living Organisms"
> 
> No Robin, it is a clear case of a careless mistake, and I can only wonder how many others are in the paper.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 15/7/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level	Classification of All Living Organisms"
>  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Richard Jensen'" <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>, "'Richard Zander'" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
>  Cc: "'Taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Wednesday, 15 July, 2015, 10:35 AM
>  
>  Hmmm. Stephen,
>  
>  You'd do that without listening or reading about it? 
>  That is tantamount to "My head is made up.  Don't 
>  bother me with the facts."
>  
>  The Neuropterida is a natural group, so whether you consider
>  it on a par with Holometabola, or as a subgroup, it 
>  doesn't matter.  As you know what is a subfamily today
>  is a family in the making tomorrow (e.g., Family Thomisidae,
>  
>  with the subfamilies Thomisinae and Philodrominae about 10
>  years ago).  Today we have Thomisidae and
>  Philodromidae,
>  and I have not seen any dissention among the troops on
>  this.
>  
>  Often what happens is that with more work done, the
>  distinctions between two subfamilies become more distinct. 
>  I can cite other examples of this for the family
>  Amaurobiidae.  What was once considered 1 family with a
>  number 
>  of subfamilies is now a whole bunch of erections to family
>  level.
>  Robin
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>  On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
>  Sent: July-14-15 4:16 PM
>  To: Richard Jensen; Richard Zander
>  Cc: Taxacom
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher
>  Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
>  
>  Well at any rate, any classification which pulls
>  Neuropterida out of Holometabola goes straight into my
>  rubbish bin!
>  
>  Stephen
>  
>  --------------------------------------------