[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Yet Another FAQ: phylum, order, family
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> The second and more far-reaching innovation was the introduction of
> higher-level groupings than the genus. In Linnaeus's original system,
> For example, the phylum Vertebrata, the vertebrates, is a part of
> the animal kingdom.
Vertebrata is not a phylum; it is traditionally a subphylum within Chordata
(along with Cephalochordata and Urochordata).
There are a large number of other ranks proposed above this. I suggest
checking out some classic works (like Matthew's classification of mammals)
for stuff between the "class" and "subspecies". Additionally, the breakdown
of units is different between traditional zoological and botanical
Incidentally, the suffixes added to various ranks within Animalia are not
standardized for taxa above the family level. See many previous discussions
in the DML archive: for example, how about
> This minimal
> approach is particularly popular in the cladistics community, perhaps
> in part because the trees generated by cladistic methods have far too
> many nodes, and change far too often, to be amenable to labelling
> with ranks.
Also from the recognition that there is no operational metric or system to
determining if two taxa differ "at the family level" versus "at the
superfamily level" or whatever; and the problem of people recognizing
equivalence of "rank" across taxa (i.e., is Ostreidae (oysters) somehow
equivalent to Alligatoridae and these two to Archaeopterygidae?).
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796