Yanega pointed to Trevor Hawkeswood, an Australia-based entomologist accused by some taxonomists of churning out species names that lack scientific merit. Hawkeswood publishes work in his own journal, Calodema , which he started in as editor and main contributor. AJH has faced similar criticism since it was launched in , despite claims by Hoser that the journal is peer-reviewed. Publications like these let bad science through, taxonomists say.
Taxonomic vandalism usually isn't subtle. One of the most common lines of evidence they steal is what's known as the phylogenetic tree. Phylogenetic trees, not unlike family trees, reveal how different animal specimens are related to each other based on their genetics; specimens that are genetically similar are grouped together. However, gathering enough evidence to make a discovery can take months or even years.
Meanwhile, culprits like Hoser swoop in. Hoser readily admits that he has used this approach to name tens—if not hundreds—of taxa.
Among them was the African spitting cobra, Spracklandus. The theory states that when animal populations are physically separated without opportunities to interbreed, they can grow genetically distinct. This is a widely-accepted theory, but not proof in itself.
To find and name new species, they will search for geographic barriers that cut through the range of an existing species, such as rivers or mountains. Hoser, Kaiser writes , uses both existing phylogenetic trees and allopatric speciation to justify generating "new" species names. For his part, Hoser maintains that the distinctions are often self-explanatory. His colleagues disagree. Strictly speaking, this is against the rules of the Code—the names are official, after all. As stated, many herpetologists refuse to use the name Spracklandus , a name they say is a product of vandalism.
Instead they use Afronaja, the name coined by scientists who first published data , which, taxonomists say, Hoser scooped. And for good reason.
Parallel nomenclature could also make it more difficult to acquire an export permit for research, taxonomists say. They are abstractions. They are information storage boxes. Linnaeus was onto something when he proposed his hierarchical taxonomy, but he was too early to really grasp how lifeforms are related. Indeed, they were: Linnaeus proposed that a kingdom of minerals Regnum Lapideum should sit alongside the kingdoms of plants Regnum Vegetabile and animals Regnum Animale.
In in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae , Carl Linnaeus established the fundamentals of the taxonomic system that persists to this day. These pages show his categorization of species within the animal kingdom, the Regnum Animale. Carl Linnaeus. Individual characteristics may belong to multiple phyla, but the full set of characteristics is supposed to define each phylum uniquely.
For example, among other defining traits, the anemones and jellyfish that make up the phylum Cnidaria are radially symmetrical, have an opening that serves as both mouth and anus, and capture prey with specialized stinging cells; the roundworms of the phylum Platyhelminthes have three distinct tissue layers as embryos, are bilaterally symmetrical, and lack a body cavity; the insects, spiders and crustaceans in the phylum Arthropoda have segmented exoskeletons and molt between developmental stages.
This idea that distinctive body plans could serve as an organizational scheme for life is actually older than the term phylum. The term phylum was coined by Ernst Haeckel in his Generelle Morphologie der Organismen , published in Over time, the number of animal phyla has expanded to about Yet there has never been a solid definition for what makes a group a phylum as opposed to a subphylum, a class or any other taxonomic rank.
He also noted that the distinctions are biased to favor human perspectives on what looks different, because they tend to emphasize qualities obvious to our eyes over less visible ones, such as genomic characteristics. But perhaps a bigger problem than the artificiality of the boundaries between phyla is that they also tell us little about the range in diversity within a phylum. If it were part of an older lineage, Tetraplatia might be considered to belong in its own order, class or phylum rather than being lumped in as a bizarre hydrozoan beside the jellies, corals and anemones of the phylum Cnidaria.
Or take rhizocephalan barnacles. The adult females are internal parasites of crabs: They grow inside their hosts in a form that resembles a branching mass of roots.
They look about as different from other arthropods as you could imagine. Indeed, the irony is that no matter what strange new forms evolution may invent in eons to come, no new phyla can be created to house them — because future organisms must fall under the same phylum as their ancestors, and the only firm taxonomic rule defining a phylum is that it cannot be nested inside another phylum.
This points to the paradox inherent in the phylum concept: In theory, phyla mark the morphological uniqueness of distinct body plans. In reality, phyla are defined by more than body plans. Some say that abrupt climatological or geological shifts were important, too — but whatever the exact trigger, the way that evolution altered species back then was seemingly different from the way it alters them now.
But more recent data have countered this idea that there was something special about the diversification of life a half-billion years ago. Their apparent morphological distance from one another could therefore be purely an artifact of fossilization and extinction, without being representative of unique biological processes.
Think about how a grocery store is organized. One large space is divided into departments, such as produce, dairy, and meats. Then each department further divides into aisles, then each aisle into categories and brands, and then finally a single product. This organization from larger to smaller, more specific categories is called a hierarchical system. The taxonomic classification system also called the Linnaean system after its inventor, Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish botanist, zoologist, and physician uses a hierarchical model.
Moving from the point of origin, the groups become more specific, until one branch ends as a single species. For example, after the common beginning of all life, scientists divide organisms into three large categories called a domain: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. Within each domain is a second category called a kingdom. After kingdoms, the subsequent categories of increasing specificity are: phylum , class , order , family , genus , and species Figure 1.
Figure 1. The taxonomic classification system uses a hierarchical model to organize living organisms into increasingly specific categories. The common dog, Canis lupus familiaris , is a subspecies of Canis lupus , which also includes the wolf and dingo.
The kingdom Animalia stems from the Eukarya domain. For the common dog, the classification levels would be as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, the full name of an organism technically has eight terms.
0コメント