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

[Stephen Thorpe]

It is a more serious mistake than that! Taking Neuropterida out of Holometabola is complete nonsense. There is no rational reason for it. It is a careless mistake.


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

 Subject: Revisions needed?  (was: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Wednesday, 15 July, 2015, 12:46 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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
 >  
 >  --------------------------------------------