EMPIRE BIOTA
Publication notification: This article has not been published in print. Algae, kn Methods and Materials
Summary
A phylogenetic classification system of bacteria is presented, based on a cladistic analysis of morphology, chemistry, physiology, and molecular biology for 23 taxons and 263 characters, and is the first comprehensive high level phylogeny of prokaryotes based on classical evidence. The results are in basic agreement with Gupta's protein phylogenies, i.e., Gram+s are primitive, Gram-s are advanced, and Mendosicutes (Metabacteria, Archeobacteria) evolved from G+s. G+s, G-s, and Metabacteria show up as monophyletic. Also presented is a phylogeny for eukaryotes. Both are designed to more accurately reflect evolutionary kinship. There are 3 bacterial kingdoms: Thermosiphia, Monodermata (containig subkingdoms Firmicutes and Mendosicutes), and Gracilicutes. The supergroup is Contobacteria comprising Monodermata and Gracilicutes. A cladistic analysis was done for eukaryotes, as well, based on 297 characters and 27 taxons. The final tree yields 9 kingdoms so 12 in all, which are Schyzophyca, Cyanidiophyca, Galdieriaphyca, Rhodophyca, Plantae, Ochrobiota (heterokontic algae and most protozoans), Conosa (mostly the classical amebas), Fungi, and Animalia. The supergroups there are Metakaryota, Neokaryota, Contophora, Bikonta, and Unikonta. Rhodophyca+Plantae is a polyphyletic group. The eukaryote-first hypothesis, the infallibility or superior reliability of genotypic evidence, and gradism as evolutionary or phylogenetic are rejected and a fusion origin for eukaryotes is proposed. A Farris system is used for rank prefixes. Also included are a comprehensive historical overview, utilitarian taxonomies, a tally table, and 4 new or standardized suffix systems. New taxons are Thermacidophilia, Eugracilicutes, Metakaryota, Neokaryota, Cellulosa, Tubulicristata, Ochrobiota, Dinobiota, Metachrista, and Neochrista. The new names are Heterotropha, Autotropha, Chemoorganotropha, Chemolithotropha, Scotoautotropha, Rhodophyca, Euglenista, Mycozoa, Neophyta, Apicophyta, Axopoda, Dinociliata, Ochrista (Chromista), and Chloroplasta.
Resumé
Un système de classification phylogénétique des bactéries est présenté, basé sur une analyse cladistique de morphologie, chimie, physiologie, et biologie moléculaire pour 23 taxons et 263 caractères, est la première phylogénie de haut niveau des prokaryotes basée sur l’evidence classique (phénotypique). Les résultats sont largement en accord avec les phylogénies de protéines de Gupta qui démontrent la position primitive de G+, l'évolution de Mendosicutes de ceux-ci. Une analyse cladistique pour les eukaryotes est aussi présentée. Les 2 analyses dessinée pour refléter avec plus de précision les relations évolutionnaires. Les 4 regnes bactériennes sont Thermosiphia, Gracilicutes, Firmicutes, et Mendosicutes. Les supergroupes sont Contophora et Monodermata. L'analyse cladistique pour les eukaryotes contenaient 27 taxons et environs 300 caractères. Il y a 9 royaumes qui sont: Schyzophyca, Cyanidiophyca, Galdieriaphyca, Rhodophyca, Plantae, Ochrobiota (algues heterokontes et la plupart des protozoaires), Conosa (pour la plupart les amibes classiques ), Fungi, et Animalia. Les super-groupes sont: Metakaryota, Neokaryota, Contophora, Bikonta, and Unikonta. Le groupement rhodopycées-plantes est polyphylétique. L'infallibilité ou la supériorité des phylogénies moléculaires, le gradisme comme évolutionnaire ou phylogénétique, et l'idée des eukaryotes comme primitives sont rejetés et une origine par fusion des eukaryotes est proposée. Un système Farris est utilisé pour les préfixes de rang. Aussi inclus sont un historique compréhensif, 2 taxonomies utilitaires, une table de totales, et un nouveau système de suffixes. Les nouveaux taxons sont: Thermacidophilia, Eugracilicutes, Eugracilicutes, Metakaryota, Neokaryota, Cellulosa, Tubulicristata, Ochrobiota, Dinobiota, Metachrista, et Neochrista. Aussi inclus sont des taxonomies utilitaires, 4 systèmes de suffixes, et une table de totales pour chaque regne.
Introduction and Historical Overview
Methods and Materials
Results
Discussion
Some Words on Nomenclature
Table 6-Data Set for Bacteria
Table 7-Data Matrix for Bacteria
Taxonomy-Meaning and Methods
Phylogeny of Eukaryotes
Tables 10-15
Conclusion
References
Author Profile (see astro-taxonomy.net)
Introduction and Historical Overview
In the 1800s a reevaluation of the Linnean system (Linneus, 1735)(containing 24 plant classes, the 1st 23 for phanerogams and the 24th for algae, fungi, mosses, and ferns; and 6 animal classes: Vermes, Insecta, Pisces, Amphibia, Aves, and Quadripedia, in the 2 traditional kingdoms) produced several attempts at improved kingdom level taxonomies (Owen, 1859, 1861; Hogg, 1860; Wilson and Cassin, 1861; Haeckel, 1866, 1878, 1894). All introduced third kingdoms respectively named Protozoa (later Acrita), Primigenum (or Protoctista), Primalia, and Protista.
There were previous 3rd kingdoms, however. Treviranus (1802-22), who coined the word “biology” in its current meaning and, like de Monet, was a proponent of species transmutation, recognized kingdoms Plantae, Amphorganicum (divided as animal-plants: zoophytes and infusorians(variously circumscribed by different authors and recognized as a kingdom by Nees Esenbeck); and plant-animals: fungi, confervae, fuci, bryophytes, ferns, and Najadales), and Animalia. Linneus (1767), aside from Animalia and Plantae, which were recognized since ancient times, the concept of the plant-animal dichotomy being introduced by Aristotle conceived the chaotic kingdom (Regnum Chaoticum) which had only 2 brief life-span. Bory de Saint-Vincent (1824) established the Regne Psychodiaire (2-souled) for zoophytes, vorticellids, and diatoms which contained 3 classes, Ichnozoaires, Phytozoaires, and Lithozoaires(corals). In his animal kingdom were included the Microscopiques comprising 4 orders: Gymnodes, Trichodes, Stomoblephardes, Rotiferes, Crustodes. It was the 1st order which contained bacteria, along with green algae, monads, amebas, ciliates, and cercaria. There was also a Regnum Neutrum (von Munchhausen, 1765-66) for polyps, corals, funguses, and lichens and a Regne des Némazoaires by Gaillon (1833).
Horaninoff (1834) proposed 2 kingdoms of nature, the inorganic and the organic, each with 4 unranked divisions, fire, water, air, and circulum corporum plus Vegetabilia (4 classes: Plantae sporophorae, Pseudospermae, Coccophorae, and Plantae spermophorae), Phytozoa (4 classes: Fungi, Algae, Polyparii(polyps), and Acelaphae(sponges and cnidarians)), Animalia (12 classes), and Homo sapiens. In 1843 he elevated his kingdoms to worlds or orbits (Orbis Anorganicum and Orbis Organicum), the 8 unranked groups becoming kingdoms (Ethereum, Aqueum, Aereum, and Minerale; Vegetabile, Amphorganicum, Animale, and Hominis). The various classes were arranged in concentric rings.
Even before this, Ammonius Hermiae, in the 400s AD, recognized animals, plants, and zoophytes and may have been the 1st to use the term "zoophytes"(if not, the honour would go to Sextus Empiricus or Iamblichus, both in the late 200s AD). The group was 1st formally established as part of Animalia by Edward Wotton in 1552.
In the 20th century, Haeckel's final version appeared in 1904, and included kingdom Histonia, but a major step occurred in 1925 (Chatton, 1925) with Chatton's recognition of the eukaryote prokaryote division classed as superkingdoms Akaryonta and Karyonta (viruses being named Aphanobionta) by Novak (1930) and named eucaryotique, procaryotique by Chatton himself (Chatton, 1937). it was Dougherty who formally named them (1957), and Neushul (1974) established subkingdoms Prokaryonta and Eukaryonta.
The 1st modern 4 kingdom system was by H.F Copeland with subsequent revisions (Copeland 1938, 1947, 1956) the final version being: Mychota (blue algae and bacteria), Protoctista (other eukarytic algae, fungi, slime molds, and protozoans), Plantae (including only embryophytes and green algae), and Animalia (including sponges). His father, E.B. Copeland ( 1928) had brought attention to the inadequacies of the 2 kingdom system and proposed the possible utility of multiple kingdoms. Other 4 kingdom schemes followed: Barkley (1939, 1949), Rothmaler (1948), both similar to Copeland's, Whittaker (1957, 1959), Takhtajan (1973), and Leedale's pteropod scheme (Leedale, 1974), all including a kingdom protista except the last 2. Bold et al (1987) also recognized 4 kingdoms (the 4th being Animalia was , however, not included but was inplicit), Monera with 2 phylums, Bacteria and Cyanophyta: Myceteae (Fungi), with 3 phylums, Gymnomycota, Mastigomycota, and Amastigomycota; and Phyta (Plantae), arranged in some 20 consecutive phylums comprising cormophytes and algae. Parker's (1982) 4 kingdoms were Virus and Monera in superkingdom Prokaryotae and Plantae and Animalia in Eukaryotae, the former with subkingdoms Thallobionta (ncluding funguses as well as algae) and Embryobionta, latter with subkingdoms Protozoa, Placaozoa, Parazoa, and Eumetazoa.
Conard (1939), Vada (1952), and Whittaker (1957) proposed a 3- kingdom scheme, which were fungi-bacteria, plants (algae and cormophytes), and animals (protozoans and metazoans), corresponding to the 3 nutrional modes and the ecologist’s functional communities. The 1st author used the names Mycetalia, Phytalia, and Animalia, the 2nd did not use an explicit rank nor names (blue algae were included in Plantae), and the last only informally suggested them. Dodson's 3 kingdoms (1971) were somewhat different: Mychota (blue algae, bacteria, and viruses), Plantae (including all eukaryotic algae plus all fungi), and Animaiia (including Protozoa).
Verne Grant (1963)devised the 1st 5-kingdom system. This comprised Monera (blue algae, bacteria, and viruses), Protista (protozoans, diatoms, and phytoflagellates), Fungi, Plantae (embryophytes, red, green, and brown algae), and Animalia. Whittaker, 6 years later, published a 5 kingdom arrangement (Whittaker, 1969), inspired by Grant's with Monera (excluding viruses), Protista (comprising other eukaryotic algae, protozoans, chytrids, hvphochytrids, and plasmodiophorans). Fungi (including oomycotes, slime molds, and slirnes nets), Plantae (same as Grant), and Animalia, with Margulis ( 1974, 1998) in turn based on Whittaker's, these latter 2 authors teaming up for a 5 kingdom article in 1978 (Whittaker and Margulis, 1978).
Others have proposed alternative kingdom level arrangements. Walton (1930) and Dillon (1963) presented one kingdom systems, the former with 3 subkingdoms Protistodeae, Metaphytodeae (multicellular plants), and Zoodeae (multicellular animals) and called Bionta, the latter with 14 subkingdoms and called Plantae. Stewart and Mattox (1980) proposed 2 eukaryotic kingdoms Bodonobiota (with flat cristae) and Dinobiota (with tubular cristae).
Leedale (1974), as well as the pteropod scheme, also proposed a 19 -kingdom fan scheme (red algae, Plantae, heterokonts, eustigs, haptophytes, cryptomonads, dinoflagellates, chytrids. Fungi, euglenoids, zooflagellates, myxomycetes, sarcodines, ciliates, sporozoans, sponges. Animalia, mesozoans. plus Monera). Mohn's (1984) also had 19 kingdoms; these were distributed into the usual 2 superkingdoms with 6 suprakingdoms being Archeobacteria comprising the single kingdom Archeobacteriobionta; Neobacteria comprising kingdoms Bacteriobionta and Cyanobionta, and Aconta (with Erythrobionta and Rhodecyanobionta); Contophora (containing 8 kingdoms: Chlorobionta, Flagelloopalinida, Euglenophytobionta, Eumycota, Dinophytobionta, Cryptophytobionta, Colponemata, and Chloromonadaphytobionta); Cormobionta (with a single kingdom bearing the same name); Animalia, containing middle-kingdoms Parazoa (with kingdoms Porifera, Archeata, and Placozoomorpha), and Eumetazoa (with kingdoms Bilateria and Radiata).
Jahn and Jahn (1949) presented 6 kingdoms: Archetista (viruses), Monera (bacteria), Protista, Metaphyta, Metazoa, and Fungi. Jeffrey's 7 kingdoms (1971) were in 3 superkingdoms Acytota (viruses); Procytota with kingdoms Bacteriobiota and Cyanobiota; and Eucytota with Kingdoms Rhodobiota, Chromobiota (essentially Chromista but including dinoflagellates), Zoobiota, Mycobiota, Chlorobiota (embryophytes and green algae). His 1982 5-kingdom system arranged as Prokaryota with kingdoms Bactericbiota and Arcbeobacteriobiota and superkingdom Eukaryota with kingdoms Phytobiota (comprising plants, red algae, protjstans, and sponges), Mycobiota (true fungi, including chytrids), and Zoobiota.
Edwards (1976) had 9 kingdoms with Bacteria and Eucaryota containing Erythrobionta (red algae), Myxobionta (slime molds), Ochrobionta (Pheo-, Chryso-, Pyrrho-, and Cryptophyta), Chlorobionta (Tracheo-, Bryo-, Chloro-, and Euglenophyta), Fungi 1 and 2 (the latter comprising water molds and slime nets), and Animaiia. Starobogatoff (1986) also presented 9 kingdoms but in 3 eukaryotic superkingdoms: Aconta comprising Rhodymeniontes(red algae),Mychota(fungi including Microsporidia), Lamellicristata comprising Cryptomonadontes (cryptophytes, glaucophytes, centrohelians, and pseudociliates), Euglenontes, Plantae(including green algae), and Animalia(including choanoflagelates), and Tubulicristata made up of Ellipsoidiontes(vacuolarians, ellipsoids, sporozoans, trichomonads, entamebeans, opalinates, and ciliates), Peridiniontes(peridiniophytes, syndineans, ellobiophytes, spheriparaians, eberideans, sticholoncheans, and radiolarians), Chromulinontes(heterokonts, haptophytes, heliozoans, haplo- and myxosporidians, myxomycetes, forams, acantharians, and archeocyathans). Kussakin and Starobogatov and Kussakin and Drozdoff (1994, 1998) also published kingdom level taxonomies and apparently included dominions and empires but the works are unavailable even in Russian.
Cavalier-Smith had several taxonomies (1978, 1981, 1983, 1986), his first being a eukaryote scheme consisting of 7 kingdoms: Aconta (red algae and fungi), Haptophyta, Cryptophyta, Heterokonta, Corticoflagellata (most protozoans plus animals), Euglenoida, and Chlorophyta. In 1981 he proposed 9 eukaryotic kningdoms and a 2nd scheme that had 6 over-all (yet said there were 7) which were Bacteria (including Archeobacteria) in Prokaryota, and Protozoa, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae, and Chromista in Eukaryota, which he presented also in 1983, 1986, 1998, and 2004. He had 8 kingdoms in 1991, comprising Empire Prokaryota composed of Archeobacteria and Eubacteria, and Empire Eukaryota with superkingdom Archeozoa including a single kingdom by the same name plus, and superkingdom Metakaryota made up of Protozoa, Plantae, Animalia, Fungi and Chromista. Mayr's system (1990) also had 6, comprising Domain Prokaryota with subdomains Eubacteria (with a single kingdom) with a subsequent version the following year (1991), and Archeobacteria (containing kingdoms Euryarcheota and Crenarcheota); Domain Eukaryota with subdomains Protista (with a single kingdom) and Metabionta (containing Kingdoms Metaphyta, Fungi and Metazoa).
Corliss's 6 eukaryotic kingdoms (Corliss, 1994, 1995) were similar to Cavalier-Smith's and included Archeozoa, Protozoa, Chromista, Plantae, Fungi, .and Animalia.
All these were decidedly artificial and Diana Lipscomb's eukaryotic system (1985, 1989, 1991), was the 1st based on cladistic analysis of classical evidence and contained 9 major groups and is discussed later. Molecular phylogenies were published by Woese, Kandler, and Wheelis (1990) which was a 3 primary kingdom set up (Archea, Bacteria, Eucarya) and by Lake (1988) which was a 2 primary kingdom set up (Parkaryotae + eukaryotes and eocytes + Karyotae). This latter author (Lake. 1986; Lake et al., 1986) has also suggested a 5 primary kingdom scheme (Eukaryola, Eocyta, Methanobacteria. Halobacteria, and Eubactcria) based on ribosomal structure and a 4 primary kingdom scheme (Eukaryota, Eocyta, Methanobacteria, and Photocyta), bacteria being classified according to 3 major biochemical innovations: photosynthesis (Photocyta), methanogenesis (Methanobacteria), and sulfur respiration (Eocyta). Baldauf and Palmer (2000) presented a 7-kingdom taxonomy for eukaryotes based on a synthesis of molecular phylogenies. These were Polymastigota, Tubulicristata(excavates, alveolates+ heterokonts), Plantaria (Plantae, red algae, glaucophycans), Lobosa-Myxomonada, Animalia, and Fungi. And Jack Holt and Carlos Iudica (Taxa of Life website, 2007) presented an arrangement which comprises 22 kingdoms in 3 domains: Eubacteria(Proteobacteriae, Spirochetae, Oxyphotobacteriae, Saprospirae, Chloroflexae, Chlorosulfatae, Pirellae, Firmicutae, and Thermotogae), Archeota(Euryarcheota, Crenarcheota), Eukaryota(Rhodophytae and Viridiplantae in supergroup Planta; Cercozoae in supergroup Rhizaria; Alveolatae, Heterokontae, Eukaryomonadae in supergroup Chromalveolata; Discicristatae and Euexcavatae in supergroup Excavata; and Amebozoae, Fungi, and Animalia in supergroup Unikonta.
The classification of bacteria has had a checkered and relatively short past. They were “invented” by Leewenhoek (1683) who considered them animalcules and in the Linnean system(1735) they were placed as specia dubia in Vermes and regarded as infusorians by Ehrenberg (1838) who first named them “Bakterien” (the English cognate was coined in 1847) but were switched to Plantae by Cohn (1872) who realized that blue algae were related to bacteria and set up the order Schizosporeae to accommodate both groups with the latter as family Bacteriaceae and later integrated as Schizophyta (1875) and were placed in Fungi in Eichler’s Thallophyta(1883) as Schizomycetes. In the first taxonomic tree (Haeckel, 1871) they were in Moneres, along with amebas, in Protista. They were first recognized as a kingdom by Enderlein in 1925.
Notable internal arrangements for prokaryotes have been done by Cohn (1872, 1875) (4 tribes, Spherobacteria, Microbacteria, Desmobacteria, and Spirobacteria); Migula (1897), which was the most widely accepted system of its time and included all then- known species but was based only on morphology; Orla-Jensen(1909); Bergey (1925, with many subsequent editions); Stanier and van Neil (1941), as Kingdom Monera with 2 phyla, Myxophyta and Schizomycetae, the latter comprising classes Eubacteriae (3 orders), Myxobacteriae (1 order), and Spirochetae (1 order); Bisset (1962), 1 class and 4 orders, Eubacteriales, Actinomycetales, Streptomycetales, and Flexibacteriales, but also a tree which comprises 6 clades Spirillum-Vibrio, Spirochetes, Trichobacteria, a pseudomonadoid group, a Cytophaga-Myxobacteria group, G+s; Gibbons & Murray (1978), with 4 phyla, Gracilicutes, Firmicutes, Tenericutes (Mollicutes), and Mendosicutes (Metabacteria); Woese and Fox (loc cit), and Mohn (loc. cit.) recognizing Gramabacteria (G+s) placing spirochetes with clostridians (because of the clastic system which is probably homoplasious) and chlamydians with mycoplasmas and Agramabacteria, coextensive with Thiobacteria (excluding blue bacteria).
Macroscopic funguses were also, of course, known in Antiquity and, along with microscopic ones, including pseudofungi and slime molds, were 1st given regnal status by Necker (1783) and Fries(1832)(The Father of Mycology), the former as Regnum Mesymale, the latter as Regnum Mycetoideum.
Protozoa was named by Goldfuss in 1817 as a class divided into 4 orders: Infusoria, Phytozoa, Lithozoa, and Medusinae. Infusoria had 4 families, Monades, Vorticellae, Brachioni, and Polypi. This was replaced by Butschli's familiar system (1880-82) containing classes Sarkodina, Mastigophora, Sporozoa, and Infusoria (ciliates and suctorians) which has survived well into the 1960s. There were then only 10 to 15 metazoan phylums. Previously, J-B de Monet (Lamarck), in Tableau du Regne Animal from 1806, distiguished between vertebrates and invertebrates recognizing 12 classes, adding Infusoires and separating out Cirripedes in 1807 and adding Tunicata in 1816. A year later Georges Cuvier established his 4 embranchements: Phytozoa, Articulata, Mollusca, Vertebrata, in Regne Animal. In ancient times, Aristotle, in his History of Animals, recognized Anaima (with white blood, invertebrates) and Enaima (with red blood, vertebrates). Doflein, in 1901, combined the 1st 3 of Butschli's classes as Plasmodroma. Lankester, in 1878, recognized Gymnomyxa and Corticata.
Algae, known by Theophrastus, the Father of Botany, and the other ancients, the word coined in 1551, but known only from seaweeds and red tides, were organized by Linneus into 4 genera, the filamentous Conferva, the membranous Ulva, the thalloid Fucus, and the gelatinous Tremella. The few unicelluar algae then known, such as Volvox, he placed in Vermes and then Chaoticum. Lamouroux distinguished Fucacées, Floridées, and Ulvacées; Agardh (1824) recognized 6 orders: Diatomeae, Nostichinae, Confervoidea, Ulvaceae, Florideae, Fucoideae. Harvey(1836) established 3 subclasses: Chlorospermae(including blue bacteria and xanthophycans which would both be separated out later in the century), Melanospermae, and Rhodospermae. Haeckel classified them as Archephyta (blue algae and most green algae), Characeae (stoneworts), Florideae (red algae), and Fucoidae (brown algae) in Plantae while placing Diatomae, Myxocystoda (Noctilucae), and Flagellata (Peridium, Volvox, and Euglena) in Protista. And Eichler (1883) divided them into the familiar Cyanophyceae, Rhodophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Pheophyceae in his Thallophyta, and, of course, included also funguses, but the phylum was 1st proposed by Endlicher (1836), with phytoflagellates claimed also by many protozoologists.
It was Eichler who divided plants into Cryptogamae and Phanerogamae, the latter being seed plants, which he in turn divided into gymnosperms and angiosperms, the latter, also for the 1st time, were formally recognized as containing monocots and dicots. But in the Middle Ages, Albertus Magnus had already recognized monocots and dicots, Theophrastus (200s BC) distinguished between, trees, shrubs, undershrubs, and herbs, between annual, biennial, and perenial, centripetal and centrifugal, polypetalous and gamopetalous, and superior and inferior ovaries, and Parasara in Ancient India knew of the cell (rasakosa) and chlorophyll (ranjakena pakyamanat) and recognized several plant families (ganas), including the mustard, bean, and squash families. The descriptions of plant morphology was quite detailed.
Engler and Prantl (1897-1915) had published a system, appearing in a monumental 20-volume work, with later editions by Engler and Gilg (1924) and Engler and Diels (1936), that was based mostly on Eichler's and was widely adopted well into the late 20th century. Like Eichler it was supposed to be phylogenetic but was largely artificial but as a convenience system it is still very useful today. It was originally written by Engler as part of a guide to the Botanical gardens at Breslau U.
Tippo (1942) had recognized 2 plant subkingdoms, Thallophyta (10 phylums) and Embryophyta (2 phylums, Bryophyta and Tracheophyta (vasculars, aka, Stelophyta), the latter containing classes Psilopsida, Lycopsida, Sphenopsida, and Pteropsida) and Bold (1973) divided the plant kingdom into 3 subkingdoms, Prokaryonta, Chloronta, and Achloronta. But Tippo's arangement was more of a synthesis instead of original as his scheme for non-vasculars followed Smith (1938) and for vasculars that of Eames (1936).
A phylogenetic plant kingdom (green algae + embryophytes) was recognized as and by the following:
Chlorobiota Jeffrey 1971
Chlorophyta C-S 1978
Viridiplantae C-S 1981
Chlorobionta Mohn 1984
Plantae Lipscomb 1985, 89, 91
Plantae Starobogatoff 1986
Plantae Corliss 1994, 1995
Viridiplantae Holt and Uidica 2007
A chloroplast kingdom was recognized as and by the following
Plantae Takhtazhan 1973
Plantae Leedale 1974
Phyta (Plantae) Bold et al 1987
The following is a tally of the various kingdoms propsed throughout history.
Aristotle 2 300s BC
Ammonius Hermiae 3 400s AD
Linneus 2 1735
Linneus 3 1767
Treviranus 3 1802-22
Gaillon 3
Munchausen 3
Bory de St. Vincent 3 1824
Horaninoff 1 1834
Horaninoff 4 1843
Owen 3 1859, 1861
Hogg 3 1860
Wilson and Cassin 3 1861
Haeckel 3 1866, 1904
Walton 1 1930
Conard 3 1939
Copeland 4 1938, 47, 56
Barkley 4 1939, 49
Rothmaler 4 1948
Jahn and Jahn 6 1949
Vada 3 1952
Whittaker 4 1957
Whittaker 4 1959
Grant 5 1963
Dillon 1 1963
Whitttaker 5 1969
Jeffrey 7 1971
Dodson 3 1971
Margulis 5 1971
Leedale 4, 19 1974
Margulis, Schwartz 5 1974, 1988, 98
Edwards 9 1976
Margulis, Whittaker 5 1978
Cavalier-Smith 6 1981, 83, 86, 98, 2004
8 1993
Jeffrey 5 1982
Takhtazhan 4 1983
Mohn 19 1984
Bold et al 4 1987
Holt, Iudica 22 2007
for eukaryotes only
Cavalier-Smith 7 1978
Stewart, Mattox 2 1980
Cavalier-Smith 9 1981
Lipscomb 9 1985
9 1989, 91
Starobogatoff 9 1986
Corliss 6 1994,95
Baldauf et al 7 2000
The data set is divided into 4 sections and 242 characteristics: morphology(19), chemistry(83), physiology (43), and molecular biology (97) in 263 columns. All the characters are ordered and there are 9 complex (branching) ones (cell shape, protein types, peptide bridge for cross-linkage A(deactivated), amino acids at position 3(deactivated), cytochromes, carotenoids, quinone classes, bacteriochlorophylls, and chlorophylls). And 7 simple ones have been deactivated, as well, (23-27, 84-86, 139, 146, 170, 235, 250) as they were superfluous since the matrix was reformatted and simplified. The computer calculation phase was performed by James Carpenter. A TNT (Tree analysis using New Technology) program, Wagner parsimony, TBR branch swapping with c. 176 mln. rearrangements, and strict concensus were used. All 4 algorithms were used: ratchet, sectorial search, tree-drifting, and tree-fusing (Goloboff, 1999; Nixon, 1999). Random seed was set at 1, no constraints were used, and the search level was set at 100. Temporary collapsing was done for consensus calculation. There was no outgroup but all of the polarities were very to fairly easily determined.
Results
These are tabulated in Table 3 with the synapomorphies, the modified version (eliminating homoplasy, accounting for missing data, and being dichotomous (using semistrict consensus)) with the synapomorphies in Table 4 and Figure 2, with the taxon list in Table 5, data set in Table 6, the data matrix in Table 7, the probable taxonomy for Actinobacteria in Table 8, and the taxon tallies in Table 9. The synapomorphies serve as formal descriptions of the new names and groups. There were 8 equally most parsimonious trees, 315 steps, a CI of .67, and an RI of .76. The trees differ only in the positions of Fervidobacterium and Thermotoga; Halobacteria and Methanobacteria; and Rickettsiae, Cyanobacteria, and Cloroxybacteria. Aerobia, Monoderma, Firmicutes, Parkaryota, Gracilicutes, Protogracilicutes, Metagracilicutes, and Neogracilicutes appear in all 8 trees.
Discussion
The phylogeny basically is in accordance with Gupta (2000) so that molecular methods, although less reliable for, at least, prokaryotes, nonetheless, have considerable value and merit. It agrees on 3 fundamental points: the monophyly of G-s, the primitiveness of G+s and advanced nature of G-s, and the position of Metabacteria. It disagrees principally in being branching instead of linear and in having Metabacteria as monophyletic without Eukaryota. The claim that the former arose from various subgroups of G+s is not at all supported by the phenotypic evidence.
There are a few groups that might be misplaced due to missing data. These are Fervidobacterium and Thermotoga in 4 of the retained trees might belong in/with Actinobacteria but are for now retained as separate kingdoms. Molecular data indicates Thermotoga is part of Firmicutes (Cavalier-Smith, 1992; Gupta, 1998b). Archeoglobus should probably be with Methanobacteria and Thermoplasma with Sulfobacteria. 4 groupings (Chloroheliobacteria, Metagracilicutes, Neogracilicutes, and Rickettsiae + Cyano + Chloroxy) are represented by homoplasious traits. Heliobacteria with Clostridia is an artefact in molecular analyses and belongs with Oxyphotobacteria as bchl g is related to chlorophylls and the latter goes to Thiobacteria for reasons stated later. It is highly unlikely that photosynthesis would be acquired through LGT and that it would arise more than once. Thermus possibly belongs in Deinobacteria. The similarity in GC content between them was mistakenly omitted which might have grouped them together and are a clade in molecular phylogenies.
Thermosiphia (with the single genus Thermosipho) has the largest number of primitive traits which are: heterotrophy, hyperthermophilia, fermentation, anaerobiosis, nonmotility, with a single membrane, thin wall, unicellularity, small SRP, absence of LSP layer, outer membrane, spores, cytochromes, quinones, catalase, and carotenoids so is probably the ancestral group as indicated also by molecular evidence and was used as the root. The Pirellulae clade concurs with genotypic data, as well, but because of the adenylate system Rickettsiae probably goes with Chlamydiae. Chloroflexi is also in the same position in molecular taxonomies.
There were a few errors in the data set which are the following: the 1st character 200 was excluded as there were 2 character 200s and bchl g (128) was not placed with chlorophylls. In the matrix 133 was improperly coded and tends to place Chloroflexi with Thiobacteria, as was 188, so that it comes up as a synapomorphy for Monoderma when it is really for Neosoma, instead, and 112 and 190 are empty characters so should be excluded, too. These, however, have little or no effect on the outcome except for 128, which is mentioned earlier, and 133.
The largest group is Thiobacteria and contains most taxons of Proteobacteria. Myxobacteria and Bacteroidikae are related to Chlorobia because of sphingolipids and the third is akin to Beggiatoikae because of sulfur oxidation which relates to Cyanobacteria because of longitudinal gliding. Crenothrix goes to Cyano as these are colourless blue bacteria as they possess thylakoids. As well as most photosynthesizers autotrophism occurs in methylmonanads, nitromonads, the hydrogen oxidizers(included in Pseudomonada), and Thiobacillus and lithotrophy in sulfomonads, Beggiatoikae, desulfomonads, Siderobacteria, Magnetobacteria, Nitrobacteria, Hydrogenobacteria, Methylmonada, Hyphomicrobikae, Pseudomonada, green sulfurs , and purple sulfurs. Corkscrew motion relates Spirillikae to Beggiatoikae, magnetosomes Magnetobacteria to the former, carboxysomes unite Nitrobacterikae, Pseudomonadikae, and Cyanobacteria, sheathed flagella Caulobacteria, Enterobacteria, and Spirillikae, iron/manganese oxidation Sulfomonada (Thiobacilli), Chlamydobacteria, and Pseudomonada, sheathed filaments Beggiatoikae, Cytophagikae, Chlamydobacteria, and Cyanobacteria, flexing motion Beggiatoikae and Cytophagikae, hydrogen oxidation Hydrogenobacteria, Cytophaga (Flavobacterium), and Pseudomonada while slime capsules occur in Neisserikae, Cyclobacteria, Myxobacteria, Enterobacteria, Beggiatoikae, and Cytophagikae, methanol utilization in Methylomonada, Hyphomicrobium, and Acetobacterikae (Acidomonas), nitrogen compound oxidation in Pseudomonada, Nitrobacteria, Enterobacteria, Neisserikae, and Methylmonada(Methylococcus), iron inclusions in Caulobacteria and Chlamydobacteria, and acetate production by fermentation in Bacteroidikae, Acetobacteria, and Veillonellikae, and Cyclobacteria goes to Methylmonada as one genus (Ancylobacter) is (facultatively) methylotrophic. So there are many similarities that indicate interrelationship between all these groups. One will notice that Cyanobacteria is very close to Proteobacteria in Woese (1987).
The synapomorphy for Archeoactinobacteria is peptide cross-linkage B at position 2 and 4, Neoactinobacteria is united by mycelia and acid-fastness, and Sporactinobacteria by arthrospores and aerial mycelia; mycolic acids are lost in Propionibacteria and Madurobacteria, arabogalactans are lost in Propionibacteria and Actinobacteria, and acid-fastness and coryneform cells are wanting in Madurobacteria; proteasomes occur in Euactinobacteriae, waxes in Corynebacteriae and Mycobacteria, and phosphatidylinositol is present in all groups; Propionibacterikae is of uncertain position but would belong in Corynebacteriae if it has a 2-layered wall. Butyrivibrio, a genus with both G+ and G- traits, most likely belongs in Proprionibacteria as it produces propionic acid.
The many traits between Metabacteria and Eukaryota could well be due to reticulate evolution. But, if Eukaryota is factored in, the results show a polyphyletic Metabacteria. As there are many characteristics shared particularly by Sulfobacteria with eukaryotes its polyphyly is maintained especially by Lake (loc. cit.) as earlier mentioned but also Lake et al (1984) and Gupta (1998). However, an analysis excluding Eukaryota would result in a monophyletic Metabacteria. Whether eukaryotes evolved through a fusion event, that is, a fusion between a sulfobacterium and a eubacterium, is unclear at this point but there is much good evidence for this(e.g., Gupta and Singh, 1994, but it would be with an actinobacterium, instead of a G- as that is where most of the similarities lie) and the analysis tends to indicate this, as well, as eukaryotes probably diverge before G-s in it but really diverge later, and it would explain the nuclear double membrane and the discrepancy between molecular evidence categories but the nucleus is part of the cytomembrane system which evolved through infoldings of the plasma membrane. This is explained by Gupta (1998).
Some Words on Nomenclature
My nomenclatural system is presented in Tables 1 and 2. There is considerable merit to using the name Bacteria for Eubacteria as Mendosicutes is worthy of supraregnal status because of fundamental differences in ribosomes, cell wall, and lipid type, however, this is impractical as Mendosicutes is a very small group, the term used broadly is too inveterate and generic names in Mendosicutes often include the –bacterium suffix, and the group is nested in Prokaryota. In other words, it is distinct but not separate so it is preferable to say Eubacteria. The suffix –zoa for protozoan groups is inappropriate and inaccurate and should be avoided in phylogenetic nomenclature and likewise for –phyta for non-plants. A prefix system for ranks is shown in Table 2. Based on the Farris system (1976) groups can be inserted without changing ranks of the taxons already included, for instance, between and hyper- and mega- one can add superhyper-. Ranks above giga- start with supergiga-, ranks below nano- start with subnano, etc. The abbreviations are given in parentheses. Rank names between basic units should be assigned as half and half, for example, if there are 6 levels the top 3 would be subtertaxic and the bottom 3 suprataxic and if there is an odd number the suprataxic predominates.
Table 1. Suffix Systems
bacteria plants algae fungi animals
phyl. -bacteria -phyta -phycota -mycota
sbtph. -bacterina -phytina -phycotina -mycotina
sprcl. -arae -icae -mycetia
class -bacteriae, ariae -opsida -phyceae -mycetes -zoa, -acea
sbtcl. -arinae -idae -phycidae -mycetinae
sprord -oidiona -ionales, arae, -aliona
-florae
order -oidia -ales -alia -ida
sbtord -oidina -inales -alina -ina
sprfam - ikea -areae -idiona -oidea
fam. -ikae -aceae -ideae -idae
sbtfam -ikinae -oidea -idina -inae
tribe -ikineae -eae -idini -ini
sbtribe -ineae
(-bacteria can, as well as a type plural, alternatively be used to designate any rank. spr-(supra) refers to any rank above and sbt-(subter) refers to any rank below the basic rank.)
Table 2. Rank Prefix System.
giga- (gg.)
mega- (meg)
hyper- (hpr)
super- (sp)
sub- (sb)
infra- (inf)
micro- (mc)
nano- (nn)
nano- replaces pico- and the abbreviations are mine.
Table 3.
Empire Biota
Thermosiphia
Aerobia
Fervidobacterium
Thermotoga
Metaerobia
Monoderma
Firmicutes
Mollicutes
Eufirmicutes
Clostridia
Actinobacteria
Neosoma
Archeoglobus
Metasoma
Thermoplasma
Cenosoma
Euryarcheota
Halobacteria
Methanobacteria
Parkaryota
Sulfobacteria
Eukaryota
Gracilicutes
Protogracilicutes
Chloroflexa+Heliobacteria
Thiobacteria+Deinobacteria
Metagracilicutes
Thermus
Neogracilicutes
Spirochetes
Pirellulae
Chlamydiae
Planctobacteria
Rickettsiae+Cyanobacteria+Chloroxybacteria
Synapomorphies
Aerobia: large STK, loss of long chain diabolic acids, aerobism, loss of hyperthermophily, catalase
Monoderma: non-formylated methionine, glutaminyl synthase tRNA glutamine transamidation, tRNA mischarging, proteasoman alpha-amylase primary structure, proteasoman serine protease 3D structure, tyrosine kinases, serine/threonine kinases, type 1 fatty acid synthase, Ku with HEH domain, calmodulin homologs, chitin
Firmicutes: DOXY pathway; foliate derivative as RNA methionine methyl donour; actinomycin, novobiocin, and penicillin sensitivity, DNAP uracil, loss of DNAP exonuclease function
Eufirmicutes: teichoic acid, naphthaquinones
Neosoma: wall with glycoprotein hexagonal array, loss of murein, pilin-like flagellar protein, HSP 90, thermosomes, ether lipids, archeol, mevalonate LFP, N-linked glycosylation, EM pathway with PFK, EM pathway reversal, ribosome SSU with bill, ribosome LSU with lobe, ribosome LSU with bulge, EF-1 aminocyl, tRNA-to-ribosome catalysis with EF-?, EF-2 with diphthamide, peptidyl tRNA translocation, with EF-2, EF-2 compatability, ribosome subunit, multiple RNAP enzymes, 8 or more RNAP subunits, RNAP subunit A, RNAP subunit B, mRNA with tail cap and tail
Metasoma: potentially coaxial helices, core histones
Euryarcheota: halophilia
Table 4.
sbemp. Bacteria (Ehrenberg 1835)
spk. Thermosiphia stat. nov., nom. nov.
kgdm. Thermosiphia stat. nov.
spk. Contobacteria tax. nov.
kgdm. Monodermata Gupta 1998) stat. nov.
sbk. Firmicutes (Gibbons & Murray 1978)
spph. Mollicutes
spph. Eufirmicutes
phyl. Clostridia
phyl. Actinobacteria (Margulis 1974)
sbk. Mendosicutes (Gibbons & Murray 1978; Metabacteria Hori & Osawa 1992) stat. nov.
spph. Euryarcheota stat. nov.
phyl. Halobacteria stat. nov.
phyl. Methanobacteria
spph. Thermacidophilia tax nov. nov.
phyl. Thermoplasmata stat. nov.
phyl. Sulfobacteria(Cavalier-Smith1986)
kgdm. Gracilicutes (Gibbons & Murray 1978; Didermata Gupta 1998)
sbk. Eugracilicutes tax. nov.
infk. Photobacteria (Gibbons & Murray 1978) tax. nov.
spph. Chloroflexi stat. nov.
spph. Thiobacteroidia
phyl. Thiobacteria stat. nov. (Mohn 1984 emend.)
phyl. Deinobacteria (Cavalier-Smith 1986) stat. nov.
infk. Spirochetes
sbk. Pirellulae stat. nov. emend.
spph. Rickettsiae
spph. Pirellulae
phyl. Chlamydiae sta. nov.
phyl. Planctobacteria stat. nov.
Synapomorphies
Firmicutes: DNAP uracil, DNAP exonuclease function, LL-DAP acid, teichoic acids, peptide bridge for A with dicarb
Monoderma: (post-transcriptional) addition of tRNA(3’-terminal) CCA, proteasomes
Actinobacteria: coryneform cell, mycolic acids, peptide cross-linkage B at position 2 and 4
Mendosicutes: wall with glycoprotein hexagonal array, pilin-like flagellar protein, HSP 90, thermosomes, ether lipids, archeol, mevalonate LFP, N-linked glycosylation, EM pathway with PFK, EM pathway reversal, ribosome SSU with bill, ribosome LSU with lobe, ribosome LSU with bulge, EF-1 aminocyl, tRNA-to-ribosome catalysis with EF-a, EF-2 with diphthamide, peptidyl tRNA translocation, with EF-2, EF-2 compatability, ribosome subunit, 8 or more RNAP subunits, RNAP subunit A, RNAP subunit B, mRNA with tail cap and tail, nonformylated methionine, multicomponent RNAPs, introns, B DNAPs, PCNA sliding clamp, high no. of r-proteins, RNAP, DNAP, and protein synthesis antibio resistance, DNAP VI, DNA 10b MCM, N-linked glycosylation, neosoman 5S 3D structure, co- translational protein secretion, vacuolar proton-pumping ATPase, oligosaccharyl transferases, SECIS- binding protein, ubiquitin- directed proteolysis, fibrillarin, replication factor C, RNA-binding proteins, ribosomal subunit compatability, EF-2 with diphthamide, IF-2 and 5A, absence of EF compatability, loss of murein, HSP 10, and SEC A.
Euryarcheota: halophilia.
Thermoacidophilia: larger LSU lobe, LSU bulge, thermacidophilic 5S secondary structure, cyclopentanol C40- biphytanol chains, hyperacidity.
Gracilicutes: large citrate synthase, flagellar ring, outer membrane, LPS, invagination, large succinate thiokinase, NADH resistance Eugracilicutes: spiral cell Photobacteria: photosynthesis, autotrophy, aa3 Thiobacterina: sulfide respiration, rubisco, lithotrophy Thiobacteria: tRNA transamidation of asparagine by aspartyl synthase
Table 5. - List of Taxons for Data Matrix
0. Thermosipho 1. Rickettsiae 2 Chlamydiae 3. Planctobacteria 4. Spirochetes 5. Chloroflexi 6. Thiobacterria 7. Cyanobacteria 8. Chloroxybacteria 9. Thermus lO.Deinobacteria 11. Mollicutes 12. Heliobacteria 13. Clostridia 14. Fervidibacteria 15. Thermotoga 16. Actinobacteria 17. Halobacteria 18. Archeoglobus 19. Methanobacteria 20. Thermoplasma 21. Sulfobacteria 22. Eukaryota
Table 6. Data Set Bacteria
all of the states are 0 absent and 1 present except where otherwise indicated; in TNT the taxons are numbered starting with 0
morphology
flagella
1. proterokonty
2. (proterokontic ) position 0 polar 1 lateral 2 internal
3. no. of poles 0 monopolar 1 bipolar
4. no. of polar flagella 0 single 1 multiple
5. (proterokontic) BB 0 with inner rings 1 with outer rings
6. (prot.) pass through outer membrane 0 absent 1 present
7.(prt.) (rotation) 0 with rt-handed helix 1 with left-handed helix general
8. cell shape 0 coccoid 0 bacillary 0 coryneform 0 vibrioid 0 spiral 1 oval 1 ell.
9. 0 coccoid 0 bacillary 0 coryneform 0 vibrioid 0 spiral 0 oval 1 ellip.
10. 0 coccoid 0 oval 0 ellip. 1 bacillary 1 coryneform 1 vibrioid 1 spiral
11. 0 coccoid 0 oval 0 ellip. 0 bacillary 0 coryneform 0 vibrioid 0 spiral 1 coryneform
12. 0 coccoid 0 oval 0 ellip. 0 bacillary 0 coryneform 1 vibrioid 1 spiral
13. 0 coccoid 0 oval 0 ellip. 0 bacillary 0 coryneform 0 vibrioid 1 spiral
14. capsule
15. fimbrias
16. toga
17. prosthecas
18. sheathed filaments
19. carboxysomes
chemistry
cell wall
20. peptidoglycan 0 pep 1 psdpep 2 -
21. heteropolysaccharides
22. protein 0 - 1 + 1 glycoprotein
23. 0 - 0 + 1 glycoprotein
24. murein 0 N-acetylated 1 N-glycolated
25. peptide cross linkage 0 A anchors at subunit position 3 and 4 1 B at pos. 2 and 4
26. peptide bridge for A 0 none 1 all
27. 0 1 monocarb 2 dicarb
28. 0 1 polymerized subunits
29. peptide bridge for B 0 L-amino acid 1 D-amino acid
30. amino acids at pos. 3 0 lysine 1 ornithine 1 DAP acid
31. 0 lysine 0 ornithine 1 DAP acid
32. peptidoglycan layer 0 thin 1 thick
33. teichoic acid
34. mycolic acid
35. cell wall outer membrane
36. KDO
37. LPS
38. cell wall with glycoprotein hexagonal array
storage products
39. type 0 PHB 1 a-1-4 amino acids
40. LSP 0 with DAP acid 1 with AAA acid
41. glutamine I type 0 ? ??? proteins general
42. cytochromes 0 c 0 a1 0 aa3 0 d 1 b 1 o
43. 0 c 0 a1 0 aa3 0 d 0 b 1 o
44. 0 c 0 b 0 o 0 d 1 a1 1 aa3
45. 0 c 0 b 0 o 0 d 0 a1 1 aa3
46. 0 c 0 b 0 o 0 a1 0 aa331 d
47. flagellar protein 0 flagellin 1 pilin-like
48. HSP 90
49. actin-tubulin folding chaperonins, no. of subunits 0 7(Group I) 1 8 (thermosome)(Group II) 2 9 (Group II)(TRIC(CCT))
50. actin-tubulin folding chaperones 0 GROES 1 GROEL/GIMC(2 subunits) 2 GROEL/GIMC (6 subunits)
51. proteasomes
52. protein secretion mech. 0 post-translational 1 co-translational
53. protein secretion chaperone 0 SecA 1 SecB
enzymes
54. citrate synthase with N-terminal helix
55. citrate synthase sensitvity/inhibition to NADH
56. citrate synthase NADH inhibition AMP reactivation
57. citrate synthase inhibition by alpha-oxoglutarate
58. citrate synthase size 0 small 1 large
59. STK size 0 small 1 large
60. catalase
61. tyrosine kinases
62. oligosaccharyl transferases
63. split glutamate synthase
64. FDP aldolases
65. FDP-activated lactate dehydrogenase
66. serine proteases 3-D structure
67. superoxide dismutase (SOD) 0 FeMn 1 CuZn coenzymes
68. factor 420
69. methanopterin lipids
70. membrane lipids 0 straight chain fatty acids with ester bond 1 branched chain aliphatic acids with ether bond
71. diether/tetraether ratios 0 high/low 1 low/high
72. triterpenes 0 - 1 hopanoids 2 sterols
73. carotenoids 0 a-car. 0 A 0 M 0 gm-car. 1 H
74. 0 A 0 M 0 gm-car. 0 H 1 a-car.
75. 0 a-car. 0 M 0 gm-car. 0 H 1 A
76. 0 a-car. 0 gm-car. 0 H 0 A 1 M
77. 0 a-car. 0 M 0 H 0 A 1 gm-car.
78 quinones
79. quinone types 0 benzoquinones 0 anthraquinones 0 anthracyclinones 1 naphthaquinones
80. 0 benzoquinones 0 anthracyclinones 0 naphthaquinones 1 anthraquinones
81. 0 benzoquinones 0 anthraquinones 0 naphthaquinones 1 anthracyclinones
82. sphingolipids
83. sulfonolipids
84. archeol
85. caldarcheol
86. unsaturated fatty acids 0 monoenoic 0 polyenoic 1 cyclopropane 1 10-methyl
87. 0 monoenoic 0 polyenoic 0 cyclopropane 1 10-methyl
88. 0 monoenoic 0 cyclopropane 0 10-methyl 1 polyenoic
89. fatty acid pathway 0 anaerobic 1 Desaturase I 2 Desat. II
90. fatty acid synthase 0 type II 1 type I
91. long chain diabolic acids
92. waxes
93. PI
94. PIM
95. lipid formation pathway 0 malonate 1 mevalonate
96. DOXY pathway
general
97. cellulose accumulation
98. chitin
99. glycosylation 0 O 1 N
100. S deposition 0 ext 1 int
101. DPA
102. EM pathway 0 without PFK 1 with PFK
103. EM pathway reversal general
104. metabolism 0 fermentation 1 respiration
105. type of respiration 0 anaerobic 1 aerobic
106. carbon sources 0 CH O (heterotrophic) 1 CO (autotrophic)
107. energy sources 0 chemical compounds(chemotrophic) 1 light(phototrophic)
108. electron or H donors 0 organic compounds(organotrophic) 1 inorganic compounds and C(lithotrophic)
109 hyperthermophily 0 + 1 -
110 TCA cycle 0 incomplete 1 complete
111 CO fixation(assimilation) pathway 0 hydroxyproprionate 1 reverse TCA 2 Calvin-Benson
112
113. sulfur compound oxidation
114. sulfate reduction
115. iron oxidation
116. CO oxidation
117. hydrogen oxidation
118. nitrate reduction
119. methanogenesis
120. clastic system
121. adenylate ADP-ATP exchange system photosynthesis
122. chlorophyllian photosynthesis
123. reaction center pigments 0 bacteriochlorophylls 1 chlorophylls
124. bacteriochlorophylls 0 c 0 a 0 b 0 d 0 g 1 e
125. 0 c 0 e 1 d 1 a 1 b 1 g
126. 0 c 0 e 0 d 1 a 1b 1 g
127. 0 c 0 e 0 d 0 a 0 g 1 d
128. 0 c 0 e 0 d 0 a 0 d 1 g
129. chlorophylls 0 a 1 b 2 c
130. 0 a 0 b 1 c 131. phycobilins
132. carotenoid structure 0 aryl 1 aliphatic 2 alicyclic
133. antenna pigments 0 bchl a or b 1 bchl c, d, or e 2 phycobilins and chl a
134. photosynthetic system 0 chlorosomes 1 cytoplasmic membrane 2 phycobilisomes
135. metabolic type 0 anoxygenic 1 oxygenic
136. electron donours 0 H2 1 S or H2S 2 HO2
137. ALA 0 glycine succinyl Co A 1 L-glutamate
reproduction
138. cell division 0 with septum 1 without septum
139. sporulation
140. sporulation position 0 internal 1 external
141. myxospores
142. budding movement
143. motility
144. gliding
145. longitudinal gliding motility
146. magnetotaxis mol. biol. ribosomes
147. small subunit 0 without bill, lobe, gap, or platform split 1 with bill only 2 with bill + lobe, gap, and platform split
148. large subunit lobe
149. LSU filled gap
150. LSU bulge
151. 70S subunit association 0 tight 1 loose 5S secondary structure
152. no. of helices 0 4 1 5
153. helix IV base loop nucleotides 0 3 1 4
154. potentially coaxial helices 5S tertiary structure
155. helices 0 4 1 5
156. region E loop
157. G region 0 long 1 short
158. 5S rRNA 5’ termini with 0 monophosphate 1 triphosphate ribosomal A protein
159. C- terminal region
160. N-terminal region
161. valine content 0 high 1 low
162. size(no. of residues) 0 large 1 small r-proteins
163. no. 0 54-65 1 60- 65 2 70-80
164. acidity 0 low 1 high
165. r-subunit protein LX
166. IF hypusine
167. mol. mass of hypusine 0 low 1 high
168. EF-1 aminoacyl tRNA-to-ribosome catalysis 0 EF-Tu 1 EF-alpha
169. EF-1 G affinity
170. EF-1 inserts 0 4-amino acid 1 11-amino acid
171. EF-2 0 without diphthamide 1 with diphthamide
172. peptidyl tRNA translocation 0 EF-G 1 EF-2
173. EF-2 compatibility 0 + 1 -
174. subunit “ RNA
175. RNAP type 0 simple 1 multicomponent
176. no. of RNAP subunits 0 4 1 8 or more
177. RNAP A
178. RNAP A structure 0 split 1 integral
179. RNAP B
180. RNAP B structure 0 split 1 integral
181. H
182. G
184. protein encoded nuclear genes with 0 cis-splicing of miniexons 1 trans-splicing
185. SRP size 0 4.5S 1 7S
186. SRP helices 1-4
187. protein-RNA mass ratio 0 low 1 high
188. tRNA initiator methionine 0 formylated 1 nonformylated
189. G tetra- and pentaphosphates
190.
191. 1-methylpseudouridine 0 + 1 -
192. N ,N -dimethylguanosine
193. X
194. archeosine(in D loop)
195. queuine 0 + 1 -
196. RNA modification levels 0 low 1 high
197. tRNA anticodon loop 0 + 1 -
198. tRNA transamidation of asparagine 0 asparaginyl synthase 1 aspartyl synthase
199. tRNA transamidation of glutamine 0 glutamyl synthase 1 glutaminyl synthase
(200. tRNA mischarging)
200. tRNA spacers 0 + 1 -
201. tRNA 3’ terminal CCA added posttranscriptionally
202. mRNA ends 0 without cap or tail 1 with tail only 2 with cap and tail
203. RNA methionine methyl donor 0 S-adenosylmethionine 1 folate derivative DNA
204. histones
205. topoisomerase II gyrase activity 0 + 1-
206. 2-stranded DNA repair Ku protein with C-terminal HEH domain
207. type II DNAP VI meiotic protein
208. B DNAPs, no. of subunits per ring 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
209. DNA helicase 0 DNAB 1 MCM
210. DNA binding protein 10b
211. G-C ratio 0 low 1 medium 2 high
212. sliding clamp
antibio sensitvity RNA polymerase
213. rifampicin
214. streptolydigin
215. actinomycin D
216. novobiocin
217. DNA polymerase aphidicolin butylphenyl-dGTP protein synthesis ribosome-targeted
218. antibio group A 0 high 1 low
219. antibio group B 0 high 1 low
220. antibio group C 0 low 1 high
221. antibio overall 0 high 1 low
222. antibio very high
223. antibio high
224. antibio low
EF-targeted antibios
225. kirromycin
226. pulvomycin
227. fusidic acid
228. penicillins 0 lo 1 hi
miscillaneous
229. introns 0 - 1 self-splicing 2 protein splicing
230. promoter type 0 eubacterial 1 box A
231.box A in ICR
232 TATA-binding protein(TBP)
233. SECIS binding protein
234. genome size 0 small 1 large
235. silybin stimulation
addenda
236. flagella 0 external 1 internal
237. gas vacuoles
238. rosettes
239. mycelia
240. wall peptidoglycan with LL-DAP acid
241. wall peptidoglycan with L- and D-lysine
242. wall peptidoglycan with arabose-galactose
243. calmodulin
244. oligosaccaryl transferases
245. proton pumping H-ATPase catalytic subunit insertion 0 F 1 V
246. rhodopsin
247. C40-biphytanyl diol chains 0 acyclic 1 mono and bicyclic 2 tri and tetracyclic
248. S oxidation
249. hyperacidophily
250. corkscrew motion
251. EF-5A
252. DNAP uracil sensitivity
253. DNAP exonuclease function 0 + 1 -
254. tRNA 5’ terminal base, molecular stalk, paired
255. (complex) replication factor C
256. HSP 10 0 + 1 -
257. plasmologens
258. STK size 0 small 1 large
259. rotund bodies
260. LSU lobe size 0 small 1 intermediate 2 large
261. epsilon B DNAP
262. division by invagination
263. halophily 0 - 1 moderate 2 extreme
Table 7. Data Matrix
0Thermosipho
0------00100000100000000????????000-00?00-----000000000?00000000000000-0-----0---000000000100000000-0000-00000--0000000000---------------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-000000000000000000000000000000?00000000000000000000001000000100000-000000000 000-000
1Rickettsiae
???????001000010000000000000-110001010001[01][01][01][01][01]00000000??????0000000000-10000[01]1000[01]00010000000000000-0001100010?-0000000010---------------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-000000000000000000000000000000?000000000000000000000010?0000000000-000000000010-010
2Chlamydiae
0------0010000000000010------------010?01-[01][01]0[01]00000000?????00000000000-0000000---000010000000001000-0001000010?-0000000010---------------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-0000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-000-000000-0000 00000010-010
3Planctobacteria
???????0010000000000010-------------10?01?0?0[01]00000000??????0000000000-0000000---000010000000001000-0001100010?-0000000000---------------00-011[01]-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-0000000000 00000000000000000000?00000000000000000000001000[01]0-000000-0 00000000010-010
4Spirochetes
1---100001011000000000000000-1[01]0001010?01?0[01]0[01]00000000?????00000000000-00000[01]0---000010000000000000-0001[01]000101-0000000100---------------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000001010000000000-000000000[01]10-010
5Chloroflexa
0----0 -?000 00000000000000000-100001000-01?????00000000?????000 00000000-000[01]0[01]1000000010000000001000-00010010[12]0?0000000000100[01][01]00--000000000-00[01]1000000000000000000000000000000000-0-00000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000 00010-0000000000-000000000010-010
6Thiobacteria
[01][01]0[01]1[01]0[01][01][01]0[01][01][01][01]0[01][01]0000000000[01]100[01]1[01]10[01]0[01][01][01][01][01][01]00000000[01][01][01]11[01]0000000000-[01][01]0[01]0[01][01][01][01]0[01][01]00100000[01]000[01][01]001000 [01][01][01][01][01][12][01][01][12][01][01][01][01][01][01]000[01]0[01][01][01][01]0--0[01][01][01]0[01][01]0[01]1[01][01][01][01][01][01]0000000000000000000000000000000-0-00000000000000000[01]000000000000[012]0000000000000000000000[01]00[01][01]00000000-0000[01]0000[01]10-01 [01]
7Cyanobacteria
0------?????1000010000000000-111001010[01]01?000000000000????110000000000-[12]00[01][01][01]1[01]000[01]0010110000001000-0001111110[01]2000[01]0000011-----0012021210[01]100[01][01]100000000000000 000000000000000000-0-000000000000000000000000000000[02]000000000000000000000010-1000000000-000000000010-010
8Chloroxybacteria
0------?????0000000000000000-110001010?01????000000000?????00000000000-000[01]0[01]1000000010000000000000-0001100010?200000000011-----100?0212?00-00?0-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-0 00000000000000000000000000000?000000000000000000000010-0000 000000-000000000010-010
9Thermus
0------001000000000000000000-100001100?01??[01]0[01]000000000???100000000000-0000000---000010000000000000-00011000001-0000010000---------------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-000000 000000000000000000000000?00000100000000000000001000000000000-000000000011-010
10Deinobacteria
0------00[01]000000000000000000-100001000?01?[01][01]0[01]00000000?????10000000000-0000000---000010000000001000-0001100011?-00000[01]0000--------------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-00 000000000000 000[01]000000000000?0000000000000000000000100000 0000000-000000000010-000
11Heliobacteria
[01]1--1-0001000000000000000000-100001000?00?????00000000?????00000000000-0?????0---000010000000001000-1001001010??0000000001001101--0??10??00-001[01]-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-0 00000000000000000000000000000?0000000000000000000000100000 0000000-000000000010-000
12Clostridia
11--0 -000[01]0000000000000000[01]0-[01][01]1100--0?01[01][01][01]000 00000000-???[01]0000100000-0-----11000000100[01]0000001100-100[01][01]101[02]0020[01]0[01][01][01]0100---------------0100010-0000000000000 0000000000000000000-0-00000000000000000010001000000000001100 0000000001000001000001000000-0000[01][01]000[01]00-00[02]
13Mollicutes
0------ 00[01]0[01]0000000-----------------00?01-----000000000-???00000000 000-0-----0000000000000000001000-0001[01]000101-0000000000---------------00-0[01][01][01]000000000000000000000000000000000-0-0000000 10000000000100010000000000011000000000001000000-00000000000-00000[01]000000-000
14Actinobacteria
[01]1--0-0[01]0[01][01][01]00000000000[01][01][01][01]0[01][01][01]11[01]0-00101[01][01][01]0[01]0000[01][01]00[01]?001[01][01]000[01][01]0000-[02][01]100[01]11000000[01][01]0[01][01]0[01][01][01]010[01]0-[01]00[01] [01]000[12]01-00000[01]0000---------------0[01]100[01]0-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-00000001000000000010[01]0100[01]00002000 [01][01]0000000000010000010000[01][01]0[01][01]000-0000[01]0000[01]0 0-000
15Fervidobacterium
1???0-000100000000000000????????000-00?00-----000000000?00000000000000-0-----0---000000000100000000-0000-00000--000000 0000------- --------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-0000000000000 00000000000000000?00000000000000000000001000000100000-000000 000001-000
16Thermotoga
1[01]?00-000100000100000000????????000-00?00-----000000000?0000 0000000000-0-----0---000000000100000000-0 000-0 0000--0000000000----- ----------00-0010-00000000000000000000000000000000-0-000000000000 000000000000000000?00000000000000000000001000000100000-00000 0000000-000
17Halobacteria
100?0-100[01]0000100002[01]11-----------0--1?00[01][01][01][01]0111111110???1?0111?0?001000000[01]1100000000000000010001-0101[01]01020?30000000000---------------00-0010-010000[01]101110111111110110111 1111110011100110111111110101100001111?111001110211011002100 1100000---0111-0001001110000002
18Archeoglobus
????0-?000000000000?0??-----------0--1?00?????111???????????0???? 0?111?0000000---001100000000010001-01110[01]0000?-0100001000----- ----------00-0010-02101???0???0????????01101111111110????????00? ??00?00?0110000????????00???0???????0?000??00000---0??0?000?0 00?00000000
19Methanobacteria
[01]0??0-000[01][01][01]00100001[01]11-----------0--1?00?????11111111??????0111?0?111[01]0000000---001100000000010001-0111010120?30000001000---------------00-0010-02[01]0[01]00[01]1???01111[01][01]110110 111111111011110011001111?110101102001111?1110011101001110021001[01]00000---01100000100011000010[01]
20Thermplasma
????0-?000000000000---0-----------0--1?00?????111???????????0????0100110000000---001100000000010001-0111[01]00010?-0000000000------ ---------00-0010-021010111???0????????01101111111111111101?100?? ?00100?0110200??????1100?010111111100?00?010000---0??0[01]110? 000?00001000
21Sulfobacteria
[01]0010-000[01]0000000012011-----------0--1?10?????11211111??????0111?0?00110000001100001100000000010001-0111[01]10000?-0000000000---------------10-0010-021011111???1????1?111111111111111111111 111101111111011110210111111110011102112111021111010000---0110 [12]1101000110002100
22Eukaryota
0------ [01][01][01]0[01]000000120[01][01]-----------0--011?[01][01][01][01]0-0111110?????-1110?12000-[12] 0[01]00[01][01][01][01]0001100[01][12]10 [01]0010[01][01]1-001[01][01]000[12]0[01]20000000000---------------1[01]10 [01][01][01] [01]02111111111111111200111111101111111000110111100 01100[01]011102111110[01] 111001001010011002111111000[01]---011 [01]-000100111[01]00210[01];
cc ] 24.28 85.87 140 145 169 235 249;
Table 8. Phylum Actinobacteria.
sbphyl. Archeoactinobacteria
cl. Corynebacteriae stat. nov.
cl. Actinobacteriae
sbphyl. Neoactinobacteria tax. nov.
cl. Euactinobacteriae stat. nov.
spord. Mycobacteria stat. nov.
spord. Sporactinobacteria stat. nov.
ord. Nocardiae
ord. Madurobacteria
Table 9. Taxon Totals for the 12 kingdoms.
phyla classes orders families genera species
Animalia 23 84 c 360 c 3600 c100, 000 c 1.1 mln.
Plantae 20 20 c 130 c 700 c 16,000 c 300, 000
Fungi 7 17 c 80 c 250 c 5000 c 50, 000
Ochrobiota 20 60 c 220 c 820 c 5000 c 55, 000
Rhodophyca 1 2 13 67 c 600 c 4000
Conosa 2 6 17 36 163 c 1500
Galdieria 1 1 1 1 1 4
Cyanidiophyca 1 1 1 1 1 3
Schyzophyca 1 1 1 1 1 1
Gracilicutes 7 ? c 30 67 c 330 c. 3000
Monodermata 7 12 24 32 c 240 c. 2000
Thermosiphia 1 1 1 1 1 ?
Total (bact) 15 ? c50 c90 c.550 c. 5,000
Total (eukts) 71 183 c800 c5200 c 132,000 1.5 mln.
from Holt et al (1994), Parker (1982)
Taxonomy- Meaning and Methods
Phylogenetics (=cladistics) is the only method that is truly and completely phylogenetic being based entirely on monophyly and phylogeny. Gradism(synthetic taxonomy), on the other hand, admits grades, which are polyphyletic, as well as paraphyletic, and considers factors external to phylogeny so it is arbitrary, contradictory, inconsistent, and subjective. The deliberate inclusion of known polyphyletic groups such as Protista, Protozoa, Pteridophyta, and Agnatha which are called "paraphyletic" and the deliberate exclusion of taxa from others to which they are known to belong thereby causing them to be trunchated, in other words splitting obviously monophyletic taxa and creating obviously polyphyletic ones is artificial and hardly a serious attempt at phylogeny. It is often not based on any system nor even analysis yet is touted as “evolutionary” or “evolutive”. Gradists do not believe evolution should be included in taxonomy or, at least, not in any serious or consistent manner, yet claim their method is phylogenetic and regard paraphyletic groups as necessarily monophyletic but in order to be monophyletic a taxon must have an immediate common ancestor unique to it. To aggravate matters many cladists acquiesce recognizing monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly as separate entities which makes paraphyly a completely ambiguous concept and use the especially Confusionese term and nonsense word “non-monophyletic” as distinct from polyphyletic when they are obviously synonymous. Utilitarian taxonomy is necessary and is stable and practical, but must be used in parallel with phylogenetics not in combination with it. I present just such a convenience classification in Table 15. The purposes of utility and phylogeny are irreconcilable within the same taxonomy but are complimentary as parallel systems.
Also, there is a disturbing overreliance on genotypic evidence which is considered foolproof and groups are regarded as necessarily and automatically phylogenetic based only on this type of evidence when it is no more reliable than the phenotypic sort, and might even be less so, as it is given to many pitfalls: random noise, long branch attraction, different evolutionary rates, mutational saturation, paralogous genes, the use of different methods, and insufficient sampling. Similar conclusions have been reached by others (cf. Felsenstein, 1978; McKenna, 1987; Raff et al, 1987; Wyss, Novacek, and McKenna, 1987; Meyer, Cusanovich, & Kamen, 1998; Philippe & Adoutte, 1998, Doolittle, 1999). It is widely believed that there is little classical evidence among bacteria of value, which is such a bizarre concept it is amazing it is almost universally held, but nothing could be further from the truth and my data set, matrix, and results prove it .
Eukaryotes Florideae (Anthophyta, Angiospermae)
The notion that prokaryotes evolved from eukaryotes is completely contradicted by all kinds of evidence, morphological, physiological, chemical, molecular, and fossil as well as by the fusion hypothesis. Also, it is difficult to imagine how chloroplasts, given they evolved from bacteria, could have appeared before them, how a complex structure like the ribosome could have evolved de novo, and the wholesale loss of a complex structure like the cytomembrane system. The whole idea of eukaryotes coming before bacteria is, in fact, so bizarre that it can hardly be taken seriously.
A cladistic classification of eukaryotes is presented in Table 10. For the root Lipscomb(loc cit) used red algae but these have fewer primitive features than some other groups like Parabasalia, Pelomyxidae, and Glaucophyca, the 1st 2 often considered as a sister group to all other eukaryotes. However, the 1st is suspect because of its parasitic life style indicating that its primitive features might well be reversals. Moreover, the pseudoflagellum of Pelomyxidae indicates reduction, and the group is related to one which is parasitic, Entamebidae, because of neo-inositol. Lipscomb was on target but did not hit the bull's eye. Cyanidioschyzon has the fewest derived traits and the highest % of primitive traits (excluding inapplicable and missing data) with 90 and is the root. It is suported as basal by Seckbach (1994), Nagashima et al (1993). Plantarians (red algae, glaucophycans, plants) are not supported as expected as they have no synapomorphies and are weakly supported genotypically.
Red algae as the most primitive eukaryotes is agreed to also by Starobogatov ( who, as well, separated Cyanidium as phylum Cyanidiophyta, and placed Glaucophyca close to Cryptophyca and Centrohelida, a radiolarian group), Vada, Taylor, Cavalier-Smith in his '78 taxonomy, Edwards, Leedale, Jeffrey, Pascher (1931), Chadefaud (1960), Honigberg et al (1964), Copeland, Whittaker, Margulis (1974), and Mohn, the others recognizing another group as such, usually green algae, or not doing any internal arrangements. Rhodophyca as basal and Plantaria as polyphyletic are supported by molecular evidence ( Hori and Osawa, 1987; Hori et al, ; Luttke, 1991; Nazaki, 2007).
Rhizaria and "Cercozoa" are also not recovered, not surprisingly, as they are ill-defined and weakly supported in molecular phylogenies. Ochrista ("chromista"), Retaria (forams and actinopods), Discicristata, Excavata, Alveolata, Pelaria (pelobiotes and eulobosans), Cercobiota (cercomonads and myxofilosans (plasmodial slime molds)), and Opisthokonta (Mycozoa) are confirmed. There are several groups misplaced so I have repositioned some taxons according to both phenotypic and genotypic features. Ochrobiota (similar to Chromalveolata and recognized also by Lipscomb) is composed of Pheobiota (Ochrista and Retaria) and Dinobiota (Dinista (Alveolata) and Discicristata) and is the most strongly supported supergroup with a dozen synapomorphies. In a synthesis of molecular evidence (Baldauf et al, 2000) strongly supported are "Amebozoa" + myxomonads, green algae in Plantae (9-1), heterokonts (6-0), Ciliata + Apicomplexa (8-2), euglenoids + kinetoplastids (7-2), weakly supported are: red algae + plants(5-7), glaucophyceans + plants(3-3), and moderately supported are microsporidians in fungi (5-4).
Chytriomycota and Microsporidia are included in Fungi, Myxozoa in Animalia, specifically Hydrozoa, and proteromonads in opalinates in Heterokonta.
Green algae are divided into 7 phyla as shown in Table 11. The arrangment is based on classical evidence(largely Mishler and Churchill, 1985) but agrees with the molecular evidence( Lewis and McCourt , 2004). There are 6 phylums of green algae, although Mesostigmataceae might be a 7th ( here it is placed in Charophyta) and Klebsormidiales might be an 8th (here it is placed with Zygnematales in Gamophyta); Volvocophyta contains prasinophycans, volvocophycans (chlamydophycans) (misnamed as “chlorophytes”as this name refers to all plants), and ulvophycans, thus the bulk of green algae. A classification for seed plants, including only living groups is presented in Table 11 as well as one for angiosperms (Florideae is properly a synonym for these and is a gross misnomer for red algae).
Table 12 contains my tentative arrangement for a group I considered as probably natural previous to the analysis and which is probably so as it corresponds well to Ochrobiota. Axopoda contains the bulk of actinopods with a few of them going to Heterokonta. Eulobosa contains the bulk of "amebozoans" equally misnamed as "rhizopods" as they are not mostly rhizopodian. Metamonada has a feeding groove as in euglenoids and jakobids(excavates) but also a honeycomb lattice as in Ameba and rootlet patterns similar to heterolobosans suggesting a probable kinship to Eulobosa and discoid cristas occur not only in Euglenoida but in Heterolobosa as well.
Contrary to Tehler’s (1988) phylogenetic analysis, which is, however, basically accurate, Chytridiomycotes might be monophyletic as he did not include rumposomes (occuring only in 2 orders, however), MLBs, nor flagellar architecture (but it shows up aas polyphyletic in molecular analyses), and naked gametes, one of 3 characters denoting a Chytridiales + Metamycota clade, is primitive. Also, oomycetes and hyphochytriomycetes belong in Heterokonta, but he included the former as part of Fungi (he used hyphochytriomyctes as the outgroup). With the exclusion of 3 or 4 small groups, which are probably phylums of their own, from Ascomycota there still remains a core monophyletic Neascomycota. Basidiomycota and Dikaryomycota (with the inclusion of Zygomycota (Kickxellales is related to Trichomycetes because of septal structure, spore ontogeny, and serology, and has a dikaryon therefore belongs with Dikaryomycota) as well as Microsporidia) are confirmed as monophyletic making 8 phylums. A phyogeny, based on Tehler, is presented in Table 13.
The general animal phylogeny is presented in Table 14 as well as phylogenies for holometabolous insects, mollusks, and extant mammals, vertebrates, .and primates.
Table 10. sbemp. Eukaryota (Dougherty 1957)-9 Kingdoms.
infemp. Schyzophyca
infemp. Metakaryota
mcemp. Cyanidiophyca
mcemp. Neokaryota
ggk. Galdieria
ggk. Cellulosa
mgk. Rhodophyca
mgk. Contophora
hpk. Bikonta
kgdm. Plantae
kgdm. Ochrobiota
hpk. Unikonta
spk. Conosa
spk. Mycozoa
kgdm. Fungi
kgdm. Animalia
Table 11. Plantae
sbk. Volvocophyta (Oltsmann 1904, as order) stat. nov.
sbk. Metaphyta stat. nov.
infk. Chlorokybophyta stat. nov.
infk. Neophyta stat. nov., nom. nov.
mck. Gamophyta stat. nov.
mck. Streptophyta (Jeffrey 1967) stat. nov. (Phragmaphyta nom. nov.)
nnk. Coleochetophyta stat. nov.
nnk. Apicophyta stat. nov., nom. nov.
sbnnk. Charophyta (Rabenhorst 1863) stat. nov.
sbnnk. Embryophyta (Endlicher 1836) stat. nov. (Cormophyta Endlicher 1836)
infnnk. Hepaticophyta
phyl. Hepaticophyta
infnnk. Stomophyta
mgggph. Cerotophyta
mgggph. Coscinophyta nom. nov., stat. nov.
hpggph. Muscophyta
phyl. Muscophyta
hpggph. Polysporangiophyta
spggph. Aglaophyta*
phyl. Aglaophyta
spggph. Stelophyta
ggph. Horneophyta*
phyl Horneophyta
ggph. Eustelophyta
mgph. Rhyniophyta*
phyl. Rhyniophyta
mgph. Neostelophyta
hpph. Lycophyta
phyl. Lycophyta
hpph. Telomophyta
spph. Trimerophyta*
phyl. Trimerophyta
spph. Megaphylla
phyl. Calomophyta
phyl. Lignophyta
sbph. Aneurophytina*
sbph. Metalignophytina
infph. Archeophytina*
infph. Spermatophytina
*indicates extinct groups
Spermatophyta
Cycadophyta
Platysperma
Pinophyta (conifers and ginkyos)
Diplophyta
Chlamydospermae (gnetum, welwichia, ephedra)
Angiospermae (Florideae) (flowering plants)
spcl Monocolpatae
cl. Magnoliopsida (Nympheales (water lily) and Magnoliales (magnolia))
cl. Liliopsida (Monocotyledonae)
sbcl. Alismatidae (water plantain)
sbcl Lilidae (lily)
spcl Tricolpatae (Eudicotyledonae)
cl. Ranuculopsida (buttercup)
cl. Rosopsida
sbcl Rosidae (rose)
sbcl Asteridae (aster)
Table 12. Tubulicristata coh Telomerida Mollusca (Malacozoa) Vertebrata sbph Myxinoidia (hagfish)
sbk. Foraminifera( [d’Orbigny1826] Eichwald 1830, stat. nov. Margulis 1974) stat. nov.
sbk. Metatubulicristata tax. nov.
infk. Axopoda stat. nov., nom. nov.
infk. Chromobiota (Jeffrey 1971) stat. nov., emend.
mck. Ciliodinista stat. nov., nom. nov.(replacing Alveolata)
mck. Chromaria stat. nov., nom. nov.
mgph. Euglenista tax. nov.
phyl. Euglenaria nom. nov.(replacing Euglenozoa)
phyl. Excavata (Cavalier-Smith 2004)
mgph. Chromista (Cavalier-Smith 1983) stat. nov.
hpph. Chlorarachnia (Cavalier-Smith 1993)stat. nov.
hpph. Euchromista (Cavalier-Smith 1993)stat. nov.
spph. Cryptomonada (Ehrenberg 1838)
spph. Ochrista (Cavalier-Smith 1993, emend.) stat. nov.
phyl. Haptomonada (Cavalier-Smith 1989)
phyl. Heterokonta (Luther 1866)
Table 13. Fungi
sbk. Chytridiomycota (maybe polyphyletic)
sbk. Metamycota
infk. Dipodascomycota
infk. Argamycota
mck. Endomycota
mck. Neargamycota
mgph. Metadipodomycota
mgph. Cenargamycota
hpph. Eremascomycota
hpph. Dikaryomycota
spph. Microsporidiomycota
spph. Zygomycota (maybe polyphyletic)
spph. Neodikaryomycota
phyl. Ascomycota (Neascomycota)
phyl. Basidiomycota
Table 14. Animalia
Choanozoa
Metazoa
Archeocyatha*
Neozoa
Spongiae (Parazoa) (maybe polyphyletic)
Epitheliozoa
Placozoa
Euzoa (Enterozoa, Eumetazoa)
Cnidaria
Argazoa
Ctenophora
Artiozoa (Triploblastica)
Ecdysyzoa
Cephalorhyncha
Sensillozoa
Nematohelminthes
Panarthropoda
Onychophora
Arthropoda
Neartiozoa
Trochata
Tetrazoa
Platymorpha
Trochozoa
Kamptozoa
Eutrochozoa
Chetifera
Conchozoa
Molluscoidia
Nemertina
Molluscomorpha
Sipuncula
Mollusca(Malacozoa)
Deuterostomia
Chetognatha
Enterocela(Trimera)
Lophophorata
Bryozoa(Ectoprocta)
Phoronozoa
Brachiopoda
Phoronida
Epithelioneuria
Echinodermata
Stomochordata
Pterobranchia
Cyrtotreta
Enteropneusta
Chordata
Urochordata
Notochordata
Cephalochordata
Vertebrata
spcoh Holometabola (Endopterygota)
sbcoh Hymenopterida
ord. Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants)
sbcoh Meronida
mgord Neuropterida
spord Raphidida
ord Raphidiodea ( snake flies)
spord Sialida
ord Neuroptera (lace-wings)
ord Megaloptera (alder flies and allies)
mgord Panorpida
hpord Mecopterida (Antliophora)
spord Mecopterodea (Mecopteromorpha)
ord Mecoptera (scorpion flies)
spord Hanstellodea (Dipteromorpha)
ord Diptera (2-winged flies)
ord Siphonaptera (fleas)
hpord Tricopterida (Amphiesmeniophora)
ord Trichoptera (caddis flies)
ord Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies)
coh Coleopterida
ord Strepsiptera
ord Coleoptera (beetles)
sbph Aplacophora
cl Aplacophora
sbph Testaria
hpcl Polyplacophora
cl Polyplacophora
hpcl Conchifera
spcl Galeroconcha
cl Galeroconcha (Monoplacophora)
spcl Rhacopoda
cl Gastropda
cl Cephalopoda (Siphonopoda)
spcl Ancyropoda (Loboconcha)
cl Bivalvia (Acephela)
cl Scaphopoda
sbph Neovertebrata
infph Petromyzontia (lampreys)
infph Gnathostomata
mcph Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish)
mcph Osteognatha
nnph Actinoidia (ray-finned fish)
nnph Choanata
ggcl Dipnoi (lungfish)
ggcl Kinocrania
mgcl Actinistia (celacanths=tassel-finned fish)
mgcl Tetrapoda
hpcl Neoamphibia (modern amphibians)
hpcl Amniota
cl Sauropsida
sbcl Diapsida
leg Archosauriomorpha
leg Lepidosauriomorpha
sbcl Anapsida
leg Testidunes (turtles)
cl Synapsida
leg Mammalia
leg Mammalia
Multituberculata
ggcoh Metamammalia
mgcoh Monotremata
mgcoh Theria
hpcoh Metatheria (Marsupalia)
hpcoh Eutheria (Placentalia)
spcoh Edentomorpha (edentates, phliodonts, paleonodonts)
spcoh Epitheria
coh Ernotheria
spord Lipotyphla (shrews, moles, tenrecs)
spord Menotyphla (jumping shrews)
spord Glires (lagomorphs and rodents)
coh Neotheria
ggord Ungulata
mgord Protungulata
hypord Ferungulata
spord Ferae (creodonts, carnivores)
spord Perissodactyla
hypord Paraxonia
spord ordArtiodactyla
spord Ceti
mgord Penungulata
Tethytheria (elephants, manatees, desmostylians)
Hyracoida (hyrax or coney)
ggord Archonta
spord Volitantia
flying lemurs
bats
spord Primatomorpha
tree shrews
primates
Primates
subord Strepsirhini (lemurs and lorises )
subord Haplorhini
inford Tarsiformes (mostly extinct, only living genus Tarsius (tarsiers))
inford Simiformes
hypfam Platyrhini (New World monkeys)
hypfam Catarhini
spfam Cercopithicoidea (Old World monkeys)
spfam Hominoidea (Anthropoidea)
fam Hylobatidae gibbons
fam Hominidae (great apes)
sbfam Ponginae
sbfam Homininae
tribe Gorillini
gen Gorilla 2 sp (W and E)
tribe Hominini
gen Pan 2 sp (common or field and bonobo or pygmy chimps)
gen Homo 12 sp ( only 1 extant, which has 2 sbsp, only 1 extant)
A Convenience Classification
If we are to design a convenience classification as was the convention prior to recently, but touted as “evolutionary”, and which we should, but separate and distinct, as it is as important and valid as a cladistic system, then an 8-kingdom arrangement without a protistan kingdom but with a protistan level is more useful and informative, unlike most modern alternative systems, which had a protistan kingdom of some sort. I present 2 such arrangements, 1 a simplified "evolutionary" scheme of 8 kingdoms as in Table 15 A and a traditional utilitarian taxonomy as in Table 15 B.
In the latter, the protistan subkngdoms are Protobacteria (Eubacteria) and Metabacteria (Archeota) and the 3 lower eukaryote subkingdoms, Algae or Protophyta, Mastigomycota or Protomycota, and Protozoa. The histonian subkingdoms are Metaphyta (Embryophyta or Cormophyta), Metamycota, and Metazoa. The 4 kingdoms are Bacteria (prokaryotic, mostly osmotrophic, and with typically a murein wall), Phyta (usualy autotrophic and with a typically cellulose wall), Mycota (osmotrophic, mostly with a chitinous wall), and Zoa (phagotrophic, with no wall). And the 2 superkingdoms are Prokaryota and Eukaryota.
The bases are, then, trophic mode/functional community, wall composition, and nuclear type. Lines can be drawn to indicate histonian and protistan levels and trophic mode sections and walled and unwalled sections. Similar taxonomies were Takhtajan’s, but ochrophycans were lumped with green algae, and blue bacteria were separated from eubacteria, and Leedale’s pteropod scheme, but there was no formal internal arrangement for the component kingdoms.
Table 15. Convenience Classification for Empire Biota
A
spk. Prokaryota
kgdm. Eubacteria
sbk. Gracilicutes
infk. Heterotropha tax. nov.
mgnph..Chemorganotropha tax. nov.
mgnph.Chemolithobacteria tax. nov.
infk. Autotropha tax. nov.
phyl. Scotoautotropha tax. nov.
phyl. Photobacteria
sbk. Mollicutes
sbk. Firmicutes
cl. Micrococci
cl. Clostridia
cl. Actinobacteria
kgdm. Metabacteria(Mendosicutes)
spk. Eukaryota stat. nov.
grdk. Chloroplasta stat. nov., nom. nov.
kgdm. Ochrophyta
kgdm. Rhodophyta
kgdm. Chlorophyta
grdk. Mycota stat. nov.
kgdm. Fungi
grdk. Zoaria stat. nov., nom. nov.
kgdm. Protozoa
phyl. Sarcodina
phyl. Sporozoa
phyl. Ciliata
kgdm. Zoa
sbk. Choanozoa
phyl. Choanozoa
sbk. Metazoa
infrk. Diploblastica
infrk. Triploblastica
grdph. Protostomia
phyl. Helminthes
cl. Helminthes-Acelomata
cl. Helminthes-Pseudocelomata
cl. Helminthes-Celomata
phyl. Arthropoda
phyl. Mollusca
grdph. Deuterostomia
spph. Lophophorata
phyl. Lophophorata
spph. Epithelioneuria
phyl. Echinodermata
phyl. Chordata
B
spk. Prokaryota
kgdm. Bacteria
sbk. Protobacteria (Eubacteria)
sbk. Metabacteria (Mendosicutes)
spk. Eukaryota
kgdm. Phyta (Chloroplasta)
sbk. Protophyta (Algae)
sbk. Metaphyta (Embryophyta)
kgdm. Mycota
sbk. Protomycota (Mastigomycota)
sbk. Metamycota
kgdm. Zoa
sbk. Protozoa
sbk. Metazoa
Conclusions
Open and shut cases are the high value and merit of classical evidence including among bacteria, the phylogenetic quality and nature of cladistics and the lack of same for gradism, the primitiveness of prokaryotes, the derived status of Metabacteria, the advanced condition of Methanobacteria and Sulfobacteria, the polyphyly of Protista and Protozoa, the position of Choanozoa and Myxozoa in Animalia, Microsporodia in Fungi, green algae in Plantae, chytrids in Fungi, and bicoesids, opalinates, and proteromonads in Heterokonta, and amebas in Tubulicritata, and the unity of Heterokonta and Eukaryota. Very high probabilities exist for the monophyly of Monoderma, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Gracilicutes, Photobacteria, Thiobacteria, and the primitiveness of Firmicutes.
Hopefully, this article will generate interest in phenotypic evidence for bacteria but also for eukaryotes.
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr. James Carpenter, editor of Cladistics, of the Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. in New York for his invaluable assistance.
References
Agardh, C.A. 1824. Systema Algarum. Berlingianis, Lund.
Ammonius Hermiae. 400s AD. Porphyri Isagogen.
Aristotle. 300s BC. History of Animals.
Baldauf, S.L., Roger, A.J., Wenk-Siefert, I., & Doolittle, W.F. (2000). A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data.
Science 290: 972-977.
Barkley, F.A. 1939. Keys to the Phyla of Organisms. U. of Montana Press, Massoula, Mon.
Barkley, F.A. 1949. Un esbozo de clasificcion de los organismos. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. 10, 83-103.
Barnes, R.S.K., ed. 1984. Synopsis and classification of living organisms. Blackwell, London.
Bisset, K.A. (1952). Bacteria, 1st ed. Livingston, London; 2nd ed. 1962.
Bold, H.C. 1973. Morphology of Plants. 3rd ed. harper and Row, NY.
Bold, H.C., Alexopoulos, C.J., Delevoryas, T. 1987. Morphology of Plants and Fungi. Harper and Row, New York.
Bory de Saint-Vincent, J-B. 1824. Psychodiaire (Regne). In Encyclopedie Methodique (J-V Lamouroux, J-B Bory de Saint-Vincent, E.
Deslongchamps, eds.), Vol. 138, pp. 657-63. Paris.
Bory de Saint-Vincent, J-B. 1824. Microscopiques. In Encyclopedie Methodique (J-V Lamouroux, J-B Bory de Saint-Vincent, E. Deslongchamps,
eds.), Vol. 138, pp. 515-43. Paris.
Bütschli, O. 1880-2. Protozoa. In: Bronn, H. G. (Ed.), Klassen und Ordnung des Their- Reichs in Wort und Bild, vol. 1. Winter’sche, Leipzig and
Heidelberg.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1978. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of microtubules, mitotic spindles, and eukaryote flagella. BioSystems 10, 93-114.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1981. Eukaryote kingdoms: 7 or 9? BioSystems 14 , 461-481.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1983. A 6-kingdom Classification and a Unified Phylogeny. In Schwemmler, W., Schenk, H. E. A. (Eds.), Endocytobiology II,
deGruyter, Berlin, pp. 1027-1034.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1986. The kingdoms of organisms. Nature 324, 416-417.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1992. Bacteria and eukaryotes. Nature 356: 570.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1993. Kingdom Protozoa and its 18 phyla. Microbiol. Revs. 57, 953-954.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1998. A revised 6-kingdom system of life. Biol. Rev. 73, 203-266.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 2004. Only 6 kingdoms of life. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 271: 1251-62.
Chadefaud, M. Emberger, L. 1960. Traite de Botanique Systématique, Vol. 1 (Les Végétaux Vasculaires). Masson.
Chatton, E. (1925). Pansporella perplexa: reflexions sur la biologie et la pliylogenie des protozoaires.In
Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie: l’anatomie, la physio1ogie, classification, et 1'histoire naturelle des
animaux. I0me series, volume 8. edited by Bouvier, M.E. L. Masson, Paris.
Chatton, E. (1937). Titres et travaux scientifique E. Chatton, Sete, France.
Conard, H. S. 1939. Plants of Iowa (Grinnell Flora 5th ed.). Iowa Acad Sci., Biol. Surv. Publ. 2, 1-92.
Copeland, E B. 1927. What is a plant? Science 65, 388-390.
Copeland, HF. 1938. The kingdoms of organisms. Quart. Rev. Biol. 13, 383-420.
Copeland, HF. 1947. Progress report on basic classification. Am. Nat. 8, 340-61.
Copeland, HF.(1956) The Classification of Lower Organisms. Pacific Books, Palo Alto, Cal.
Cohn, F. (1875). Untersuchungen uber Bakterien, II. Beitrage zur Biologie der Pfanzen 1: 141-207.
Cuvier, G. Regne Animal. 1817.
Dillon, L. 1963. A reevaluation of the major groups of organisms based on comparative cytology. Syst. Zool. 12, 71-82.
Dodson, G.O. (1971). The kingdoms of organisms. Syst. Zool. 20: 265-281.
Doolittle, W. F. (1999). Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284: 2124-2128.
Dougherty, E. Neoligism needed for structures of primitive organisms 1- Types of nuclei. J. Protozool. 4,14.
Doflein, F. 1901. Die Protozoen als Parasiten und Krankheitserreger. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
Eames, A. J. 1936. Morphology of Vascular Plants-Lower Groups.
Edwards, P. (1976). A classification of plants into higher taxa based on cytological and biochemical criteria. Taxon 25: 529-542.
Eichler, A.W. (1886). Syllabus der Vorlesungen uber specielle und Medicinisch-pharmaceutische Botanik, 4th ed. Borntraeger, Berlin.
Enderlein, G. 1925. Bakterien-Cyclogenie. de Gruyter, Berlin.
Endlicher, S.L. 1836. Genera Plantarum.Vienna.Fries, E. 1821. Systema Mycologicum, vol 1. Berlinger, Lund.Necker, N. J., de. 1783. Traité sur la
Mycitologie. Matthias Fontaine, Mannheim
Engler, A. 1886. Fuhrer durch den koniglichen Garten. Breslau.
Engler, A., Prantl, H. 1897-1915. Die naturalischen Pflanzenfamilien, 20 vols. Leipzig.
Engler, A., Diels, L. 1936. Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. Berlin.
Engler, A. Gilg, E. 1924. Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien. Berlin.
Felsenstein, J. (1978). Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27: 401-410.
Farris, J.S. (1976). Phylogenetic classification of fossils with recent species. Syst. Zool. 25: 271-282.
Fries, E. 1821. Systema Mycologicum, vol 1. Berlinger, Lund.
Gaillon, B. 1833. Apercu d’histoire naturelle. In: Mémoires et Notices, Soc. Agric. Com. Arts, Boulogne-sur-mer, pp. 95-114.
Gibbons, N.E. & Murray, R.E. (editors)(1978). Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 9th ed. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
Goloboff, P. A. (1999). Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 15: 415-428.
Gupta, R.S. (1998). Protein phylogenies and signature sequences: a reappraisal of
evolutionary relationships archeobacteria, eubacteria,and eukaryotes. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62: 1435-1491.
Gupta, R.S. 1998b. Life's 3rd domain: an established fact or an endangered paardigm. Theor. Popul. Biol.54: 91-104.
Gupta, R.S. (2000). The natural evolutionary relationships among prokaryotes. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 26: 111-131.
Gupta, R.S. & Singh, B. (1994). Phylogenetic analysis of 70 kD HSP sequences suggests a chimeric origin for the eukaryotic cell nucleus. Current Biol.
4: 1104-1114.
Haeckel. E.H. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Reimer, Berlin.
Haeckel, E. 1878. Das Protistenreich. Gunther, Leipzig.
Haeckel, E. 1994. Systematische Phylogenie, Vol. 1. Reimer, Berlin.
Haeckel, E. 1904. The Wonders of Life. Harper, New York and London.
Harvey, W.H. 1836. Algae. In: J.T. Mackay(Ed.), Flora Hibenica., vol 2,.Curray, Dublin., pp. 157-256.
Holt , J.G., Krieg, N.R., Sneath, P.H.A., Staley, J.T., Williams, S.T. (editors)(1994). Bergey’s Manual of Determinative
Bacteriology, 9th edn. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
Honogberg, B.M. et al. 1964. A revised classification of the phylum Protozoa. J. Protozool. 11: 7-20
Horaninow, P. 1834. Primae Lineae Systematis Naturae. St. Petersburg.
Horaninoff, P. 1843. Tetractys Naturae. Weinhoberianis, St. Petersburg.
Hori, H, Osawa, S. 1987. Origin and evolution of organismsas deduced from 5S rRNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 445-472.
Hori, H. Stow, Y, Inoue, I, and Chihara M. 1990. Origins of organelles and algae evolution deduced from 5S rRNA sequences. In: Dardon, P.,
Gianinazzi- Pearson, V., Grenier, A.M., Margulis, L., Smith, D.C. (Eds. ), Endocytology IV, INSA, Paris, pp. 557-559.
Jeffrey, C. (1971). Thallophytes and kingdoms: a critique. Kew Bull. 25: 291-299.
Jeffrey, C. (1982). Kingdoms, codes, and classification. Kew Bull. 37: 403-416.
Kussakin, O. G., Starobogatoff, Y.I.. 1973. On the very highest categories of the organic world. Problemy Évolyutsii (Problems of Evolution), Nauka,
Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Novosibirsk. 3 , 95-103; Pp. 215–226 (In Russian).
Kussakin, O.G., Drozdoff, A.L. 1994 (vol.1), 1998 (vol. 2), Phylums of the Living World (in Russian).
Lake, J.A. (1983). An alternative to archeobacterial dogma. Nature 319: 626.
Lake, J.A., Henderson, E., Oakes, M., Clark, M.W. (1984). Eocytes: a new ribosome structure indicates a new kingdom
with a close relationship to eukaryotes. Proc. NAS USA 81: 3786-3790.
Lake, J.A.(1986). Mapping evolution with 3-D ribosome structure. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 7: 131-136.
Lake, J.A. (1988). Origin of the eukaryotic nucleus determined by rate-invariant analysis of rRNA sequences. Nature
331: 184-186.
Lamouroux, J-V, Bory de St. Vincent, J-B, Deslongchamps, E. (Eds.). Agasse, Paris, pp. 657-63.
Lee, J.J., Hunter, S.H., Bovee, E.C. 1997. Illustrated Guide to Protozoa.. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
Leewenhoek, A. van. (1683). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London.
Lewis, L. A. & McCourt, R.M. (2004). Green algae and the origin of land plants. Am. J. Bot. 91: 1535- 1556.
Linneus (von Linne, C. (1735). Systema Naturae. 1st ed. Lugduni Batavorum, Stockholm.
Linneus, C. 1767. Mundus Invisibilis. In Amenitatis Academicae, vol. 7, pp. 385-408. Erlangen.
Lipscomb, D. (1989). Relationships among the eukaryotes. In The Hiearchy of Life , edited by B. Fernholm, K. Bremer, & H. Jornvall, Elsevier, New
York. pp. 161-178.
Lipscomb, D. (1991). Broad classification: the kingdoms and the protozoa. In Parasitic Protozoa,Vol. 1, 2nd eds. edited by J.P. Kreier & J.R. Baker.
Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 81-136.
Luttke, A. 1991. On the origin of chloroplasts and rhodoplasts: protein sequence composition. Endocyobiosis Cell Res. 8, 75-82.
Margulis, L. Five-Kingdom classification. in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 7, pp. 45-78, ed. T. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht, and W.C. Steere, Plenum, NY.
Margulis, L, Schwartz, K. 1998. Five Kingdoms, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman. NY.
Margulis, L., Melkonian, M., Corliss, J.O., D.J. Chapman. 1990. Handbook of Protoctista. Jones and Bartlett, Boston.
McKenna, M.C. (1987). Molecular and morphological analysis of higher level mammalian relationships. In Molecules and
Morphology, edited by C. Patterson,.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 55-93.
Meyer, T.E., Cusanovich, M.A., & Kamen, MD. ( 1986). Evidence against use of bacterial amino acid sequence data for
construction of all-inclusive phylogenetic trees. Proc. NSA USA 83: 217-20.
Migula, W. (1897). System der Bakterien. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
Mishler, B.D., Churchill, S.P. (1985). Transition to a land flora: phylogenetic relationships of green algae and bryophytes.
Cladistics 1:305-328.
Mohn, E. (1984). System und Phylogenie der Lebewese. 2 vols. E. Schweizerbart’sche.
de Monet, (Lamarck), J.B.J. 1806. Tableau du Regne Animal.
von Munchhausen, O.. 1765-76. Bibliotheca Botanico-Physico-Economica. Forsters, Hanover.
Nagashima, H. et al. 1993. Several new strains of thermal alga Cyanidioschyzon as the most primitive eukaryotes. In: Sato, V, S., Ishida, M.,
Ishakawa, H.(Eds.), Endocytobiology, Tübingen U. Press,. pp. 279-285.
Nees Esenbeck, von . 1770. In : C. d’Orbigny( Ed.), Dictionnaire Universelle d’Histoire Naturelle.
Nielsen, C. et al. (1996).Cladistic analysis in the animal kingdom. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 57:385-410.
Neushul, M. 1974. Botany. Hamilton; Santa Barbara.
Nixon, K.C. (1999). The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15: 407-414.
Novak, F.A. (1930). Systematika Botanika. J.R. Vilimek, Praha.
Nozaki, H. et al. 2007. Phylogeny of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes as deduced from slowly evolving nuclear genes. Mol. Biol. Evol.
Orla-Jensen, W. (1909). Die Hauptlinien des naturalischen Bakteriensystems nebst einer Ubersicht der
Garungsphenomene. Zentr. Bakt. Parasitenk., II, 22: 305-346.
Parasara. 1st millenium BC. Vrikshayurveda (Botany).
Parker, C.(ed.). (1982). Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pascher, A. 1931. Systematische Ubersicht uber die Flagellaten. Bot. Zentrlb. Beih, Abt. 2. 48: 317-32.
Philippe, H. & Adoutte, A. (1998). The molecular phylogeny of Eukaryota: solid facts and uncertainties. In Evolutionary RelationshipsAmong Protozoa
edited by G.H. Coombs, K. Vickerman, M.A. Sleigh, and A. Warren, Systcs. Assc. Spl. Vol. Srs. 56, KluwerAcademic, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, pp. 25-56.
Prévot, A.R. (1963). Manuel de Classification et Determination des Bacteries Anaerobies. 4th ed. Masson, Paris.
RAFF, E.C., DIAZ, H.B., HOYLE,H.D., HUTCHENS, J.A., KIMBLE,M., RAFF,R.A., RUDOLPH, J.E.,
&SUBLER, M.A. (1987) Origin of multiple gene families- are there both functional and regulatory constraints?
In Developmen as an Evolutionary Process, edited by R.A. RAFF & E.C. RAFF) Alan Liss, New York. pp. 203-238.
Ragan, M.A. 1997. A 3rd Kingdom of life: the history of an idea. Arch. Protistenkd. 148: 225-43.
Seckbach, J. 1994. The 1st eukaryotic cells-acid hot-spring algae. J. Biol. Physics 20, 335-345.
Smith, G.M. 1938. Cryptogamic Botany,Vol. 1 ( Algae and Fungi ). McGraw-Hill, NY.
Stanier, R.Y. & van Neil, C.B. (1941). The main outlines of bacterial classification. J Bacteriol 42: 437- 466.
Starobogatoff, Y.I. 1986. On the number of kingdoms of eukaryotic organisms. Trudy Zool. Inst. 144: 4-25.in Russian.
Tehler, A. 1988. A cladistic outline of Eumycota. Cladistics 4: 227-277.
Theophrastus. 200s BC. Enquiry into Plants, 10 vols.(9 extant) (transl. A. Hort, 1916).
Tippo, O. 1942. A modern classification of the plant kngdom. Chron. Bot. 7; 203-6.
Treviranus, G. 1802-1822. Biologie. Gottingen.
van Neil, C.B. (1946). The classification and natural relationships of bacteria. Cold Spring Harb Symp. Quant . Biol 11:
285-301.
Walton, L. B. 1930. Studies concerning organisms occurring in water supplies with particular reference to those found in Ohio. Bull. Ohio Biol. Surv.
24, 1-86.
Whittaker, R.H. 1957. The kingdoms of the living world. Ecology 38, 536-538.
Whittaker, R.H. 1959. On the broad classification of organisms. Quart. Rev. Biol. 34, 210-226.
Whittaker, R.H.(1969). New concepts of kingdoms. Science 163: 150-160.
Whittaker, R. Margulis, L. 1978. Protistan classification and the kingdoms of organisms. BioSystems 10: 3-18.
Woese, C.R. & Fox, G. E. (1977). The concept of cellular evolution. J Mol Evol 10: 1-6.
Woese, C.R.., Debrunner-Vossbrinck, B.A., Oyaizu, A., Stackebrandt, S., Ludwig, W. ( 1985). Gram-positive bacteria: possible photosynthetic
ancestry. Science 229: 762-765.
Woese, C.R.., Olsen, G.V. (1 986). Archaebacterial phytogeny: perspectives on the urkingdoms. Syst. Appl.
Microbiol. 7: 161-177.
Woese, C.R., (1987). Bacterial evolution. Microbiol. Rev. 51: 221-271.
Woese, C.R., Kandler, O, & Wheelis, M.L. (1 990). Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the
domains Archea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc. NAS USA 87: 4576-4579.
Wheelis, M.L., Kandler, O, & Woese, C.R., ( 1992). On the nature of global classification. Proc. NAS USA 89:
2930- 2934. Wyss, Novacek, & McKenna(1987). Amino acid sequence versus morphological data and the
interordinal relationships of mammals. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4: 9-116.
hit counter activated July 8, 2008
