Message 2001-06-0036: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

Tue, 01 May 2001 15:14:49 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Next by date - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Previous by subject - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Next by subject - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]

Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 15:14:49 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <>
Subject: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Re: Subscribers]

    The ICBN mandates that Order names shall end with the suffix -ales.  And
although ICZN does not address ordinal level taxa, the Zoological Sciences
Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has
recommended that zoological orders be given the ending -ida (as has long
done by the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleonotology).  I follow both the
botanical mandate and the zoological recommendation for invertebrates.>>

Seems to me like if you are _alone_ with this. Standardization of endings is
only logical, as long as there are ranks, but I think this comes far too

<<     There are no mandates for the names of classes, but again the
Sciences Section of the AAAS recommends that the names of classes be given
standard ending -ea, which I follow.  The ICBN recommends the -opsida ending
for metaphytes and the -mycetes ending for eumycotans, which I have slightly
modified (by one letter) to -opsidea and -mycetea, so that all classes in
kingdoms of organisms would have a common -ea suffix.
     At the phylum level, the zoological recommendation is that all should
with -a, which I follow, the botanists recommend -phyta and -mycota for
metaphytes and eumycotans (which I also follow), and it has been proposed
protist phyla be given the standardized ending -protista (which I gave as
alternate names after each of the traditional phylum names.>>

So to Dinophyta, Dinozoa, Dinoflagellata and Dinomastigota (I've seen all 4
in print) you add Dinoprotista? :->

<<     Therefore, there is not a desparate need for PhyloCode for taxa at
taxonomic levels.  What is needed is for ICZN, ICBN, and BioCode to take
decisive action instead of mere recommendations.  Since PhyloCode seeks to
abolish Linnean ranks, asking that it step in would obviously be a waste of
my time.>>

Let me disagree with this. As far as I know, everyone who uses ranks agrees
that Chordata is a phylum and Vertebrata a subphylum, and that Mammalia,
Aves etc. are classes. But there are many names in between -- Gnathostomata,
Tetrapoda, Amniota, Thero- & Sauropsida, just to name the better known ones.
All these have been named long before Willi Hennig was even born. ONLY ONE
OF THEM (or Thero- & Sauropsida) CAN BE A SUPERCLASS, and all others have to
be forgotten if we stick to use ranks. All are very useful, and very widely
used. Another example: Eumetazoa is apparently a subkingdom, and Chordata,
Echinodermata, Annelida, Arthropoda*, Mollusca etc. are phyla. So what to do
with Bilateria ( = "Triploblastica"), Coelomata, Proto- & Deuterostomia,
Ecdyso- & Lophotrochozoa, Panarthropoda*... again they can't all be
superphyla. Okay, Ecdyso- & Lophotrochozoa were named by cladists, but all
are useful and widely used, I don't want to have to forget most of them.

*In the biosciences library at the University of Vienna here there is a book
from 1995 or so, "The Diversity of Living Organisms", in which Crustacea,
Chelicerata and Tracheata (I think) are regarded as phyla -- PhyloCode will
end such "differences" of opinion -- , and together with Tardigrada,
Lobopodia/Onychophora and "Pentastomida" (which are fish lice in tetrapod
lungs and tracheae) are grouped into Superphylum Panarthropoda, next to
Aschelminthes, Eutrochozoa, Acoel...(forgot whatever ending) and

In short, we need about 1236594181 ranks, and since this is nonsense, let's
stop naming them and calling them ranks.

Another problem... there is one (or two?) species, *Trichoplax adhaerens*,
which alone occupies an entire subkingdom (Phagocytellozoa), phylum
(Placozoa), class, order, and family (don't know their names). What for?

<<      I prefer to work within the established codes as far as possible,
but I
would like to see PhyloCode modified in any way that will minimize confusion
and conflict with those established codes.  Therefore I support your
suggestions for alternate names for taxa that have well-known paraphyletic
usages (Osteichthyes, Reptilia, Synapsida, etc.).>>



Feedback to <> is welcome!