[Previous by date - Fw: reply to David M on species]
[Next by date - Re: reply to David M on species]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:12:32 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode
> > Would it be a good idea to start discussion on that matter here? Or might > > that get too specialized? Certainly it might get too specialized. :-) > 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?) Maybe we should be careful and use Geobiota Kinman, 1994? Who knows where else... What's more correct linguistically, Biota or Bionta? > _Eubacteria_ (is this a clade?) > _Archaea_ (is this?) The latter has pretty impressive apomorphies, like the ether-bonded cell membranes, doesn't it? > _Plantae_ I'd suggest a stem-based definition... but what is the sister group of the clade (Glaucophyta + (Rhodophyta + Viridiplantae))? > _Fungi_ Do we want to have Chytridiomycota inside? > _Animalia_ > > Have these been defined in the literature anywhere? Animalia has been used (no idea whether defined) in 2 ways in cladistic literature: Animalia |--Choanoflagellata `--Metazoa Diplosomata |--Choanoflagellata `--Animalia = Metazoa > Should these names be used? What other clades > should be named at the approximate "level" of these ones? The problem here is that the phylogeny at this level is only now in the process of being slowly worked out.