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

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Barry,                   Yikes.  I hadn't looked at their arachnid classification, but it is pretty bad.   In particular, the scorpions and extinct eurypterids should probably be classified in a Class Scorpionea, separate from Class Arachnida (as I did in 1994).  As for mites, I certainly agree that they could well be polyphyletic with respect to other arachnids.                 And I said in a Taxacom posting (April 2001?), I have no major objections to a two order classification of mites (Acariformes and Parasitiformes), but would prefer to split off Order Opilioacariformes from the latter (and this might be more acceptable as a consensus middle ground of three orders). 
         But their supraordinal classification (two for mites and another N.N. superorder for all the rest) is just plain bad, and I wouldn't advise anyone to follow it  Anyway, my list of suggested revisions to this classification continues to grow, but I still see no reason to throw this it into the rubbish heap.  It just needs additional work, and hopefully within months (NOT 5 years).                             ----------------Ken Kinman  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:24:34 -0400
> From: bmoc at umich.edu
> To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
> 
> Well, in this classification, the Acari are treated as two "superorders"
> with all other Arachnida relegated to a single unnamed "superorder".
> Although relationships of mites to other arachnids are still unsettled,
> most analyses have them (as one or two distinct lineages) variously related
> to other "orders" within Arachnida. I'm afraid this "consensus" is the
> fault of acarologists, who typically don't deal with other arachnids. There
> has been a tendency to inflate the ranks of mites so while all spiders are
> comfortably treated as one order, mites now get six. There's no doubt that
> each of the two "superorders" of Acari is monophyletic, less certain is
> whether they are sister taxa. I've always been happy with two orders of
> Acari, given the lack of consensus on monophyly of the entire group. This
> classification is more in line with that of the other arachnid groups, with
> each treated as an order.
> I'll go along with Stephen. This classification sets things in "stone" at
> least for a while for those without particular knowledge or interest in a
> particular group, but with respect to the Acari, I won't use it.
> All the best! - Barry
> 
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
> > No Robin, it is a clear case of a careless mistake, and I can only wonder
> > how many others are in the paper.
> >
> > Stephen
> >