Message 2002-01-0012: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)

Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:17:53 -0400 (AST)

[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:17:53 -0400 (AST)
From: "Alastair G. B. Simpson" <>
To: "T. Mike Keesey" <>
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <>
Subject: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)

Just for the record (and sorry for the nit-picking):  It is not clear that
Eubacteria actually is a clade (That is, if you force Eubacteria to be a
clade under a phylogenetic definition, it might turn out to be
indistinguishable in practical terms from 'Biota').   Meanwhile the 'base
of eukaryotes' workers are toying with all sorts of 'fusion' models for
the origin of eukaryotes.  Some of these invoke combinations of relatively
'modern' eubacteria with relatively 'modern' archaea, such that no matter
which of the two contributers you choose to recognise as carrying the
continuity of descent to the eukaryote lineage, Eukaryotes would fall
inside either the 'eubacterial' or 'archaeal' clades.  This is not a
comment on the plausibility or otherwise of any of these 'fusion'
models: merely a note that the would not be a strong consensus from
workers in 'the field' that either Eubacteria or Archaea are actually
clades which exclude Eukaryota (and in the case of Eubacteria, exclude
Archaea as well!).

Alastair Simpson

> Okay, regardless of whether it's a good idea, I want to try and start a
> discussion on this, starting at the highest levels. What should be the
> definitions for these clades?
> _Biota_ (apomorphy-based?)
> _Eubacteria_ (is this a clade?)
> _Archaea_ (is this?)
> _Eukaryota_
> _Plantae_
> _Fungi_
> _Animalia_
> Have these been defined in the literature anywhere? How should they be
> adapted to PhyloCode rules? (e.g., Should our own species be an internal
> specifier for _Animalia_?) Should these names be used? What other clades
> should be named at the approximate "level" of these ones?

Alastair G.B. Simpson, PhD
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellow
Canadian Institute of Advanced Research (Evolutionary Biology)
Laboratories of Andrew J. Roger and of W. Ford Doolittle

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
Room 8B, Sir Charles Tupper Medical Building,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
B3H 4H7, Canada.

Phone: 902 494 2881 (Country code 1)
  Fax: 902 494 1355 (Country code 1)


Feedback to <> is welcome!