- 1 Description
- 2 Note
- 3 Alternative classifications
- 4 Protista is not a clade!
- 5 Protista is not a clade!
- 6 references
- 7 Too soon to decide
- 8 Protista the defunct taxon
- 9 My new proposal
Could anyone give a one-line description of these things? Piet 13:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- The subdivision into the kingdoms Plantae, Animalia, Archaea, Bacteria, Fungi and Protista is not according to current knowledge. Green algae, land plants and red algae make one lineage (Plantae), the fungi, choanoflagellates and animals (metazoa) make another one (Opisthokonta). All other so-called protists are further subdivided into several evolutionary lineages that are not monophyletic. A kingdom Protista doesn't exist and animals and land plants are no kingdoms of their own. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 December 2005.
Protista incertae sedes: Vampyrellida Unclassified protist genera - "approximately 220 genera that have been described but which still lack a contemporary identity and are unplaceable within a phylogenetic classification" (Patterson, 1999). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lycaon (talk • contribs) 07:39, 21 July 2006.
Alternative classifications of both Protozoa and Protista are shown.
Honigberg et al. (1964)
John O. Corliss (1984)
From The kingdom Protista and its 45 phyla
Kingdom Protista (or Protoctista) Haeckel, 1866
- Assemblage "Rhizopods"
- Assemblage "Mastigomycetes"
- Assemblage "Chlorobionts"
- Assemblage "Euglenozoa"
- Assemblage "Rhodophytes"
- Assemblage "Cryptophytes"
- Assemblage "Choanoflagellates"
- Assemblage "Chromobionts"
- Assemblage "Labyrinthomorphs"
- Assemblage "Polymastigotes"
- Assemblage "Paraflagellates"
- Assemblage "Actinopods"
- Assemblage "Dinoflagellates"
- Assemblage "Ciliates"
- Assemblage Sporozoa
- Assemblage Microsporidia
- Assemblage Haplosporidia
- Assemblage Myxosporidia
From Kingdom Protozoa and its 18 phyla
In Empire Eukaryota
Kingdom Protozoa Goldfuss, 1818 stat. nov. Owen 1858/9 emend. Cavalier-Smith, 1987
From A revised six-kingdom system of life
In Empire or Superkingdom Eukaryota
Kingdom Protozoa Goldfuss 1818 stat. nov. Owen 1858 emend.
From The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa
Protista is not a clade!
(copied from another discussion, sorry, I was not connected).
- I know the rules which is to use strict taxonomy on Wikispecies.
- But it is true now that Protista is STILL NOT a taxon and this should be noted...
- What is true is that Protista is in Eukaryota, but there are Protista (noted in bold below, I try to respect the names of the type of taxons or clades, but these typenames are mostly there to make the hierarchy more easily readable; I am trying to reconcile the various classifiaction, using strict monophylogenic taxonomy as the guide):
- All the classification of Protista is polyphylogenic, and uncertain as a clade (as demonstrated by rRNA studies published since 1999)
- May be Protista should even be deleted from Wikispecies (or sorted out of the main navigation tree in a related article)!! 22.214.171.124 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note that the kingdoms of animals and Plantae were kept, only by extending them to include some species previouslay part of Protista
- That's why some prefer to name the new clade of animals (vernacular name): Metazoa instead of: Animalia (was not a taxon before being reformed!) 126.96.36.199 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So I would also like to see the super-kingdom of Amoebozoa listed in Wikispecies at least at the same level as the (reformed) kingdom Animalia, Fungi (preferably renamed Mycota on Wikispecies, because it was reformed too) and the (reformed) kingdom of Plantae in the main page, and possibly keep Protista listed only to group the other smaller(?) phylogenic kingdoms (Chromista, Discicrista, Rhizaria).
Because I have no account there, you can contact me on French Wikipedia: fr:Utilisateur:Verdy_p
- I can agree with quite alot of things. Don't see any need to rename Animalia or Fungi, I'm pretty sure they will be named nom. cons. for obvious reasons. I am aware of these ideas though. Can you state your source of this given taxonomy, or if it comes from a few sources name them seperately please :) --Kempm 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the multiple edits, there are tons of links to check... 188.8.131.52 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC) The sources are on the French page of Wikipedia which gives all the details: fr:Eukaryota (classification phylogénétique) 184.108.40.206 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I am still editing the classification above, due to lots of heterogeneity in Wikispecies for the classification of Protista. Note that if Protista is kept, it should be clear that this is a reformed kingdom within the hyper-kingdom of Anterokonta, and that this reform was needed to make it monophyletic and to exclude species that are now part of the reformed kingdom of Plantae (in the same hyper-kingdom) and of the kingdom of Fungi (within the hyper-kingdom of Opisthokonta). 220.127.116.11 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Protista is not a clade!
I think Protista could be kept as a kingdom. Just as long as it is stated clearly that Plants, Animals and Fungi are just the three most important branches of it.
The Opisthokonta and Amoebozoa are also monophylletic together, and that's about the current Sarcomastigota, where it should state Opisthokonta in stead of Choanozoa, because Opisthokonta includes Choanozoa and Mesomycetozoa (and animals and fungi). And then it's Choanozoa or Choanomonada or Choanoflagellata.
The Chromalveolata are Chromista + Alveolata. Alveolata contain Ciliophora, Dinozoa and Apicomplexa (incomplete list). The Chromista is a large group which is not 100% sure monophylletic. It is probably subdivided in one large group, the Stramenopila (including Chrysophyta, Xanthophyta, Phaeophyta, Bacillariophyta and probably more) and some smaller groups, like the Cryptophyta or the Haptophyta.
There's probably a zillion groups I forgot because I don't know of them (I'm only a student). But I do believe that, if you take this basic structure of 6 large groups and some information about them on this page; and give the complete description and áll subdivisions on the page of that group, it would work very well and be more clear for someone simply interested in Protists.
Feel free to fill in the groups I've missed.
Twerbrou 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Twerbrou, for adding to this discussion. A major overhaul of the highest levels of taxonomy is still in the pipeline for ToDo on wikispecies. We will definitely compare all proposals and see how everything will fit together. For now: can you name the author(s) of your proposal? If possible a weblink or the name of a book. --Kempm 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That is the grouping we learned in our course in university (Gent). Most of it (maybe all, I'm not sure) is also stated in an article from Adl et al. in 2005: The New Higher Level Classification of Eukaryotes with Emphasis on the Taxonomy of Protists. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52(5), 2005 pp.399-451. I thought I'd mentioned it, but I hadn't. My mistake. Twerbrou 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Too soon to decide
In spite of Adl et al. in 2005 hoping that their "6 group" classification of eukaryotes would be stable, it's clear now that it isn't going to be. There simply is no consensus. Cavalier-Smith continues to plough his own furrow, with long articles full of references to his own papers, which don't seem to be used as a basis for other people's work. In a 2009 review article, Roger and Simpson conclude that "with the current pace of change in our understanding of the eukaryote tree of life, we should proceed with caution." [Roger, A.J. & Simpson, A.G.B. (2009), "Evolution: Revisiting the Root of the Eukaryote Tree", Current Biology 19 (4): R165–7, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.12.032, PMID 19243692]. This seems sound advice to me. w:User:Peter_coxhead 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
An additional point is that you can't sensibly take bits from classifications from different groups and put them together, as is the case now. Thus the classification of the eukaryotes quotes Cavalier-Smith a lot and uses many of his taxa. But Cavalier-Smith denies the domain/superkingdom split between archaebacteria and eubacteria. So it's quite inconsistent to start with a level he denies exists and then at a lower level use his concepts. w:User:Peter_coxhead 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Protista the defunct taxon