Talk:Kingdom (biology)

kingdoms
''I have tidied this section, previously rendered as enormously long due to blank lines, using the poem template, which stops lines from concatenating. Pol098 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)'' animalia, consisting of animals plantae, consisting of plants fungi, consisting of...fungi monera, consisting of bacteria and protista, consisting of viruses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.84.159 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * there are five kingdoms of living organisms
 * Wow, this is really nice; what's the source, though? Bencoland (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM BY LINEAGE

DOMAIN BACTERIA Ž Phylum Spirochaeles Phylum Chlamydiales Phylum High-GC Gram Positives Phylum Cyanobacteria Phylum Low-GC Gram Positives Phylum Proteobacteria Class ε-Proteobacteria Class α-Proteobacteria Class ß-Proteobacteria Class γ-Proteobacteria Class δ-Proteobacteria

DOMAIN ARCHAEA Phylum Crenarchaeota Phylum Euryarchaeota DOMAIN EUKARYA Insert non-kidrock Kingdom Excavata Phylum Diplomonadida (diplomonads) Phylum Parabasalida (parabasalids) Kingdom Discicristata Phylum Euglenida (euglenids) Kingdom Alveolata Phylum Ciliata (ciliates) Phylum Dinoflagellata (dinoflagellates) Phylum Apicomplexa (apicomplexans) Kingdom Stramenophila (Heterokon) Phylum Oomycota (oomycetes) Phylum Diatoma (diatoms) Phylum Phaeophyta (brown algae) Kingdom Cercozoa Phylum Foraminifera, or forams Kingdom Amoebozoa Phylum Gymnamoebae (lobose amoebae) Entamoeba, Amoeba Phylum Dictyostelida (cellular slime molds) Phylum Myxogastrida (plasmodial slime molds) Kingdom Plantae (plants) Phylum Glaucophyta (glaucophyte algae) Phylum Rhodophyta (red algae) Subkingdom Chlorophyta (green algae           Phylum Ulvobionta            Phylum Coleochaetales            Phylum Charales (stoneworts)

LAND PLANTS Nonvascular Plants (bryophytes) Phylum Hepaticophyta (liverworts) Phylum Anthocerophyta (hornworts) Phylum Bryophyta (mosses) Seedless Vascular Plants Phylum Lycophyta (lycophytes, or club mosses) Phylum Psilotophyta (whisk ferns) Phylum Sphenophyta, or Equisetophyta (horsetails) Phylum Pteridophyta (ferns)

SEED PLANTS Gymnosperms Phylum Gnetophyta (gnetophytes) Phylum Cycadophyta (cycads) Phylum Ginkgophyta (ginkgo) Phylum Coniferophyta (conifers) Angiosperms Phylum Anthophyta (flowering plants) Monoctyledon, or Monocots Dicotyledon, or Dicots, or Eudicots

Kingdom Opisthokonta Subkingdom Microsporidia Subkingdom Fungi Phylum Chytridiomycota (chytrids) Class Chytridiomycetes Order Blastocladiales Order Chytridiales Phylum Zygomycota (zygomycetes) Basidiobolus Class Zygomycetes Order Entomophthorales Order Mucorales Phylum Glomeromycota (arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) Phylum Basidiomycota (club fungi) Phylum Ascomycota (sac fungi) Lichen-formers Non-Lichen formers Subkingdom Choanoflagellata (choanoflagellates, or collar flagellates) Subkingdom Animalia Phylum Porifera (sponges) Phylum Cnidaria Class Hydrozoa (hydrozoans) Hydra, Obelia, Physalia, Gonionemus Class Scyphozoa (jellyfishes) Aurelia Class Anthozoa (sea anemones, corals) Metridium Phylum Ctenophora (comb jellies) Protostomes Phylum Acoelomorpha (acoels) Lophotrochozoa Phylum Rotifera (rotifers) Phylum Platyhelminthes (flatworms) Class Turbellaria (planarians) Dugesia Class Trematoda (flukes) Clonorchis, Fasciola, Schistosoma Class Cestoda (tapeworms) Taenia Phylum Annelida (annelids, or segmented worms) Class Polychaeta (marine worms) Neanthes Class Oligochaeta (aquatic and semi-terrestrial worms) Lumbricus Class Hirudinea (leeches) Phylum Mollusca (mollusks) Class Bivalvia (bivalves) clams, mussels, scallops, oysters Class Gastropoda (snails [nudibranchs, tree snails, etc.] sea slugs, land slugs) Class Polyplacophora (chitons) Class Cephalopoda (cephalopods) squids, nautiluses, cuttlefish, octopuses Ecdysozoa Phylum Nematoda (nematodes, or roundworms, & hookworm) Ascaris, Trichinella, & Necator Phylum Onychophora (onychophorans, or velvet worms) Phylum Tardigrada (tardigrades, or water bears) Phylum Arthropoda (arthropods) Subphylum Chelicerata (chelicerates) horseshoe crabs, spiders, scorpions, ticks, mites Subphylum Crustacea (crustaceans) shrimps, crayfishes, lobsters, crabs, barnacles, copepods, isopods (sowbugs) Subphylum Myriapoda (myriapods) millipedes, centipedes Subphylum Insecta (insects) grasshoppers, cockroaches, lice, termites, flies, ants Deuterostomes Phylum Echinodermata (echinoderms) Class Asteroidea (sea stars) Asterias Class Ophiuroidea (brittle stars, basket stars) Class Echinoidea (sea urchins, sand dollars) Class Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers) Class Crinoidea (feather stars, sea lilies) Phylum Hemichordata (hemichordates, or acorn worms) Phylum Chordata (chordates, or vertebrates and ascidians) Subphylum Urochordata (urochordates) tunicates, sea squirts Subphylumm Cephalochordata (cephalochordates) lancelets Subphylum Vertebrata (vertebrates) Class Myxinoidea (hagfish) Class Petromyzontoidea (lampreys) Class Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, and skates) Class Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) Class Actinistia (coelacanths) Class Dipnoi (lungfish) Class Amphibia (amphibians) Order Anura (frogs, toads) Order Urodela (salamanders) Order Apoda (caecilians) Class Mammalia (mammals) Subclass Monotremata (platypuses) Subclass Marsupiala (marsupials) Subclass Eutheria (placental mammals) 18 orders; 6 orders with most abundant species Order Rodentia (rodents, or rats, mice, squirrels) Order Chiroptera (bats) Order Insectivora (hedgehogs, moles, shrews) Order Artiodactyla (pigs, hippos, deer, sheep, cattle) Order Carnivora (carnivores) dogs, bears, cats, weasels Order Primates (lemurs, monkeys, baboons, apes, humans) Class Reptilia (reptiles) Subclass Testudinia (turtles, tortoises) Subclass Lepidosauria (lizards, snakes) Subclass Crocodilia (crocodiles, alligators) Subclass Aves (birds)

More than 5 kingdoms
I was wondering what everyones ideas are about higher than 5 kingdom classification systems. I was taught the 5 kingdom system as an undergrad, but this system lumps archaebacteria and eubacteria into Monera which I really don't care for. Another system that looked interesting at first but then never really caught on is the 8 kingdom system (archived 2003-03-29) which splits Protista into three separate kingdoms along with the eu/archae-bacteria split. At the very least I think it would be useful to split Monera since this would make our system compatible with the 3 domain classification system (otherwise Monera has two domains). --maveric149

I think splitting Monera is a great idea. We could either call the two pieces kingdoms, or simply list domains in place of kingdoms for the prokaryotes. Note animal currently identifies that kingdom as a subgroup of the eukaryote domain, so we would be being reasonably consistent, although I think we may want to skip listing eukaryote on phyla and lower ranked groups.


 * I agree that we should get rid of "Monera", and replace it with links to two different kingdoms: True Bacteria and Archaea. However, I am not comfortable editing Wikipedia tables, and will leave this change to others.  As for the idea of splittin up protista, it is now failt well accepted that the protista contain not just 3, but many kingdoms. In all seriousness, it seems that the term "protista" can best be defined as "All the other kingdoms that don't fall into Bactera, Archaea, Plantae, Animalia and Fungi". RK


 * I think you are right in that we should move from the five kingdom system to a six kingdom one and leave all the "leftover" kingdoms lumped in protista. The table color for Archaea could simply be a darker grey. --mav


 * I tend to disagree. I was taught 5 systems at school, then moved to a three system. These are the systems used and known in the "real" world. I don't think it is Wikipedia role to decide to start a new 6 system just because the actual system is not satisfying. I think it would be very confusing to visitors, as it is not what is currently most well-known. Anthere


 * It is well known. I was also taught the 5 kingdom system which is a huge improvement over the 2 or 3 kingdom ones. However, there is a large flaw in the five Kingdom system in that it lumps Bacteria in with Archea. This wouldn't be so bad if Bacteria and Archea were merely two different kingdoms in the same domain but they are two different domains. Therefore in order to make the most widely used system (the 5 Kingdom one) work with the newest research which states there are 3 domains we must divide Monera in two. My feeling is that biology is moving in this direction already. My undergrad micro professors always taught that Monera is outdated and that we should use Bacteria and Archea. We needn't keep Wikipedia stuck in the 1980s in this regard. --mav 18:40 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Then, create a new page to present your new system, but don't remove the one that is explaining the system that is the most widely known. As a microbiologist myself, I have always rather strongly separated bacteria from archaea (we don't use monera). I have also heard enough times that what we are doing here is not "proposing" new theories (or even forcing new theories). Your "feeling" that biology is moving in that direction doesnot seem enough to me to make a widely known system disappear to replace it with a just emerging system. If we do so, it should presented as what it is, a new system emerging, proposed by such and such guy.


 * And btw, I am a bit confused between your kingdoms and domains, because we use a common word for them, "règnes"; in any case, I think the 3 "règnes" system is a *huge* improvement over the 5 "règnes" one.

Be careful about splitting up Protista. The Chromista or Stramenopila are well-established and I have seen them ranked as a kingdom in a few places, but the Archeozoa are likely polyphyletic and I don't expect them to gain much currency. Also, you occasionally see a kingdom Alveolata or kingdom Euglenozoa, and maybe a few other groups. However, the Protista left behind is going to be a paraphyletic junk-basket unless you create an insane amount of kingdoms, so the sectioning really only helps to emphasize the monophyly of the new group in question. I wouldn't mind, but most people seem not to bother. --Josh Grosse

The five kingdom system is finally being replaced by 6 kingdom systems, even in high school textbooks. I have a new High School Biology texts which has a system that seems to address everyone's concerns, both about accuracy and about ease of use. The new Prentice Hall textbook has a diagram which shows both the 3-domain and 6-kingdom system together. I am not up on using tables in Wikipedia format, but it looks something like this: The three domain are presented in a larger font, and underneath each one finds the kingdoms. RK
 * This is not a good way to word it, It has not been "finally replaced." There is no standard, and our current understanding is nmost unlikelyt to be finally correct. The best way of presenting it is a tree diagram, but I, too, do not know how to do that here.

Bacteria - Archaea - Animalia, Plantae, Fungi,  Protista

 * I have no trouble to working with another system. But removing everything of the old system is just a revisionnism I think abusive. Please, do not make utterly disappear the old system on behalf it is not considered the "right" one now. At least, preserve it somewhere. It is not because some think a classification is the "right" one *now* that the old way taught a couple of years ago is "wrong" and should be discarded.


 * I also agree that we should not get rid of references to the 5-kingdom system and replace them with the 3-domain system. Rather, I am saying that on this page we should have both systems, as shown above. I am only saying that we need to tweak it a little by using 6-kingdoms instead of 5, because Archaea and Bacteria are just so vastly differet that we need to note this at the outset. In fact, why not have a brief history of how classifications evolved? RK


 * Plant - Animal


 * Plant - Animal - Fungi


 * Microorganisms - Plant - Animal - Fungi


 * Bacteria - Protista - Plant - Animal - Fungi


 * Bacteria - Archaea - Protista - Plant - Animal - Fungi

I agree with RK. This page is not necessarily about the Five Kingdom system but it is about the biological classification known as Kingdoms (we can and should have a separate page on each Kingdom system eventually). It would be negligent of us if we hid the glaring fact that Monera is a preposterous excuse for a Kingdom (even more so than Protista - which can at least be thought of as a super-Kingdom). But on this page we should, as RK states, show how the classifications evolved. But the table and the colors dictate the organizational schema that is going to be used for WikiProject Tree of Life so for that project we need to standardize on a system that makes sense for both domains of prokaryotes and doesn't totally get rid of the most widely-used system (the Five Kingdoms). --mav

I added some discussion of the different systems. I don't remember the exact course of their development, so that would have to be added in later. Still, does what's up satisfy everyone? -- Josh Grosse


 * Yup! I clearly was out of my mind since I didnot understand that was what Mav intended to do from the very beginning, keeping history rather than removing the 5 kingdom for the benefit of the 6 kingdom. I changed our link since the object of the page changed. Thanks Josh.


 * Not bad, not bad at all. I'll be making some mods in order to solve the WikiProject Tree of Life issue but I really like what you have started. --mav

Revisiting this. The very few prokaryotic pages that have taxoboxes list domain Bacteria with no associated kingdom, which seems to be preferred to listing kingdom Bacteria with no domain (listing both is redundant). As such, the 6-kingdom system listed on this page is not really being used here, and so I don't think it deserves the prominence it is being given on this page. That is, while it should be definitely mentioned in the text, I don't think we need to have a third table listing the same groups as the first two. So I am removing the third list (which is visually distracting anyways), while encouraging anyone who felt it was really important to reverse the edit.

Here's another thought. We could have a single table accompanying the text discussing the different systems. This might make editing a little harder, but it isn't that simple to begin with, and should make reading somewhat easier. Perhaps something like this:

I'm going to cut and paste here a note I posted to Josh Grosse when I saw he'd made "Protoctista" into a redirect for another classification (I can't remember at the moment whether it was "protist" or "protozoa"). I assume it's pertinent to the discussion here, although I confess I haven't read it:


 * I noticed you made "Protoctista" a redirect and left no mention of the classification anywhere on Wikipedia. Even if the term represents a classification system you don't like, censorship is heavy handed, don't you think? Meanwhile, as far as not liking it, while I'm not up on taxonomy or the discussions about it on wiki, I see that the authors of several encyclopedias and reference books have been confident enough to represent "protozoa" as an outmoded term and "protoctista" as current. According to the xrefer Website, the 2000 edition of the Oxford University Dictionary of Biology defines "protozoa" this way:
 * "A group of unicellular or acellular, usually microscopic, organisms now classified in various phyla of the kingdom Protoctista (see Apicomplexa; Ciliophora; Rhizopoda; Zoomastigota). They were formerly regarded either as a phylum of simple animals or as members of the kingdom Protista."

So why don't you like the terms and on what grounds would you remove it all together? 168...

I have nothing against the term, and am certainly not trying to censor it. Simply put, the Protoctista and Protista are almost entirely synonymous and are both currently used. The latter is somewhat more common then the former, which is why it's the term we've been using here. I've added mention of it to Protista so it will turn up in searches. Further explanation of the two terms would best be part of a discussion of different classification systems, which nobody has decided to research and write yet. That's all.

The formal taxon Protozoa is for the most part considered obsolete, but people still use the term protozoa as a descriptive term, without implying anything about the relationships of the groups in question. That's the way it's being used here, as a convenient way of organizing the many different groups included in the Protista. I suppose I could try and curtail it somewhat, if that's what we wanted to do. It should be noted that the Protozoa do reappear in some of the more recent classification systems, where most of the algal and fungus-like forms have been segregated into new groups like the Chromista, but this doesn't seem to have much support yet.

Thanks, Josh

I really like the single table above. --mav


 * Yeah, here is another vote for the single table. Should we also keep every previous table in the article?  One part of the article can trace the history of kingdom classification with the current individual tables, and this multi-table can appear at the end as a way to compare them all.  Hmmm; that might be too confusing for many readers.  Maybe we can keep all the text, and just use this table?  What do others think? RK

My vote is to just use the summary table. We don't need to give the reader the same information three times. -- Josh

-- Hm. From my research it seems that Woese first promoted a 6-kingdom system but later adopted the 3-domain concept. Can this be confirmed? If true we need to tweak the table so that the 6-kingdom system comes before the 3-domain system (I don't know how to do this). We also need to tweak the text. Here is my evidence:
 * According to Campbell 5th Edition, page 499 (ISBN 0-80531957-3), which reads; "Archeabacteria and eubacteria diverged so early in the history of life that many researchers, led by Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, first proposed a six-kingdom system: two prokaryotic kingdoms along with the four eukaryotic kingdoms." The text then introduces the three domain system but doesn't say who led that charge (although we already know it was the same person).

--mav

Done. Wonder if it's worth putting any other systems in the table. --Josh

However, the most recent such classification, the three-domain system, institutes a level of classification above the kingdom, called the domain.

The introduction of ranks above kingdom is not something peculiar to the three-domain system, and I don't see any good reason to single it out like this. It's already discussed as part of the historical sequence.

Under the three-domain system of classification, the domain Eukarya is typically split into a large number of kingdoms.

Sometimes, but often they are simply left as four or five kingdoms, and I'm not convinced that's not the more typical approach. The introduction of additional eukaryotic kingdoms is already discussed, and it should be obvious that they'd go in the Eukarya.

On Talk:Domesticated outsider taxa i pose a queston abt my nonce term "outsider taxa", which also relates to Domestication --Jerzy 09:36, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)

Six Eukaryotic Kingdoms
A group of scientists commissioned by the International Society of Protistologists has just published a new classification of Eukaryotes into six super-groups which they liken to kingdoms.

The abstract: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00053.x

The note in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7064/full/438008b.html

One interesting development (as someone who knows little about eukaryotic diversity) is that animals and fungi are grouped together (with a few other things) as Opisthokonta. Plants are in Archaeplastida and the other four groups are all protists. It is probaly too soon to update Wikipedia with this, but it's definitely worth being aware of. Jmeppley 22:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, the authors use a rankless system, so they're discussing top-level clades and not formal kingdoms. A kingdom Opisthokonta would include organisms that have very little in common except genetic relationship, and I don't think zoologists or mycologists are likely to adopt it. So I'm not sure the supergroups are relevant here, but they're already listed on eukaryote. Josh

They Lack a Nucleus
I have an objection to the statement, "... bacteria have a radically different cell structure from other organisms -- they lack a nucleus ..." There are two problems with this.


 * 1) It may be equally valid to say that what they lack is not a nucleus but an outer layer; i.e., a bacterium doesn't lack a nucleus, a bacterium is a nucleus. Or perhaps, to be fair, what they don't have is a division into an inner and outer layer.
 * 2) To say that they lack this feature displays the author's eukaryotic bias, as if to say, "Those poor, primitive bacteria; they haven't learned the right way to construct their cells. But we eukaryotes know better." (Or, it's like a black person saying that white people lack melanin.) I'd say, rather, that they are quite good at what they do; they don't lack anything. A more fair description might be that eukaryotes (or whatever the correct term is; I may be blurring the taxa, but let's put that aside) have a two-layer cell structure, whereas bacteria have a single-envelope structure. David Kantor 12:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a lot of interpretation to put on a single choice of word in what is just a short gloss! However, your suggested change would be an improvement, so why not make it? (I wouldn't say "two-layer" though, many eukaryotes have multiple layers of cell structure; see Endosymbiotic theory.) Gdr 09:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We could just say Bacteria and Archaea don't have nuclei. That's more or less objective I think. Of course yes bacteria are good at what they've evolved to do, I think it would be a scientifically accurate statement to say that Bacteria and Archaea are less complex than Eukarya in that they do not have nuclei or other organelles. 71.106.26.175 10:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra table
The following text was added:

''The kingdoms are best classified according to their cellular structure (prokaryotic/eukaryotic), cellular organization (single and multi-cellular), and trophic function (chemo and photosynthetic autotrophs, and mobile and sessile heterotrophs). This biological kingdom chart results in''

Yeasts constitute a clear single-celled member of the fungus kingdom, placing it phylogenically separate from protists, thus accounting for the overlap within unicellular eukaryotic sessile heterotrophs.

I've temporarily removed this, because I don't think it's accurate. For instance, it implies that Archaea and Eubacteria are separated by mode of nutrition, and Plantae and Protista are separated by multicellularity. Neither is true. There are chemoautotrophic Eubacteria, and depending on what system you use, multicellular protists (brown algae) or unicellular plants (green algae). In both cases, the organisms are best classified by phylogeny, and the sort of things mentioned in the table are secondary. Josh


 * This kind of classification by mode of life (sessile/mobile) and nutrition was a respectable approach before phylogeny was practical, so maybe the article could say a bit more about it (and about its abandonment). Gdr 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From the text: ''The resulting five-kingdom system, proposed in 1969, has become a popular standard and with some refinement is still used in many works, or forms the basis for newer multi-kingdom systems. It is based mainly on differences in nutrition: his Plantae were mostly multicellular autotrophs, his Animalia multicellular heterotrophs, and his Fungi multicellular saprotrophs. The remaining two kingdoms, Protista and Monera, included unicellular and simple cellular colonies.'' We could say more; but as is, does this table help? Josh

additional thoughts and suggestions
I've just come here, and it may be clearer if I collect my remarks in one place, though they refer to various comments above. I was once a molecular biologist, specializing in evolutionary genetics--decades ago--and I am very much aware of how much things have changed and continue to change, and how in the past I've learned -- and taught -- things as definitively known, when this has not proved to be the case. Fortunately, WP is an ideal medium for showing the current knowledge, but that must be distinguished from the superseded knowledge. We should write to thebest current

It cannot be expected that there will be a "standard." Our arrangement of the fudamental divisions is intended to reflect the pattern of their evolution, which is known (for these fundamental divisions) by gene sequencing and the interpretation of these sequences. This is not a static science. For exampe, it should not be assumed that the archea are monophyletic, for we may not yet have sequenced similar-appearing but basically divergent organisms. With present knowledge (2006), it would be equally possible to separate the archea from everything else, everything else then being divided into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. This should not be disturbing--it is good to learn about the biology of the archea, regardless of their evolutionary position. For that matter, what the tree of Life project does cannot possibly be definitive for all time either, though it would be good to keep in step with it. And beware of thinking that our currrent knowledge is best found in text books and dictionaries.

Again, with present knowledge, (as as Jmeppley says above) it appears not to be the case that Fungi are either plants, or are  equally different from plants and animals. From mitochondrial genome sequencing, it has become clear that they are more closely related to animals--that in the course of evolution there was an organism ancestral to both animals and fungi, but not to plants. See http://www.springerlink.com/content/etj5861l14hpfcvc/ Not OA, but the abstract is sufficient. This is how one classifies--not by picking a single visible feature. (See the excellent article on cladistics). We are, in effect, more closely related to mushrooms than to oak trees.

As also discussed here previously, the Protista are not monophyletic. How they will ultimately be classified may not yet be clear, but at least that much is known. I doubt there is a good way of handling this at the present time, as there appeatrs not to be any consensus among the specialists. I have just learned here about the interesting article reffered to by :Jmeppley. Perhaps it represents consensus--in which case the  knowledgable brief article on protista would need to be updated.

As for technique, I know enough html to revise the colored tables like those used here. We shouldn't have the most recent scheme in the illustration for the article be from 1990. But the conventional way is to show phylogetic trees is line drawings, as is done in the  cladistics article, and I do not know how to do that on WP.

To summarize, as said above by others, this is not the place to work on a definitive classification. The article needs to be written to indicate the basics of what is in fact known, and what is not, and also to explain the history, with the understanding it will be updated from year to year. And to remember that it is talking about the concept of "Kingdom" as a biologic term. I am not sure it is the place for a discussion of the present knowldge of the major divisions of organisms; on the other hand, such a discussion does have to go somewhere, and if its not being done elsewhere in WP...

DGG 06:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See also on the history of Biosystematics

Did Linnaeus use the name Mineralia? Or "Regnum lapideum"? 84.10.114.122 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seven Kingdoms
My high school science teacher said that he heard there were seven kingdoms. Please respond on my talk page. junebuggy 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there is 41.113.209.34 (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy!
Not all bacteria are prokaryotes. The current text implies otherwise. 130.126.245.245 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. A defining characteristic of a bacterium is the absence of a nucleus.  Therefore, the current text remains correct. +  A.0u  01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention Cladisitics? Subjectiveness?
Im a computer engineer, not a biologist ... but Ive been studying evolution and molecular biology as a hobby for decades. The definitions of Kingdoms, Classes, Orders, etc has always struck me as somewhat arbitrary. Especially now that the evolutionary tree is viewed as a very deep, very complex tree with millions of branches, the selection of Kingdoms is a very subjective action.

In fact the subjectiveness is proven by the variety of Kingdom-choices (3- 5- 6-) that various experts propose.

Is the 5-Kingdom approach correct? or is the 6-kingdom approach correct? What does "correct" mean in this context? Is there an _objective_ definition of "Kingdom" that (if we were omnipotent and knew everything) would produce a single, correct set of Kingdoms?

My understanding is that there is no "correct" set of Kingdoms, because there is no objective definition of what a Kingdom is or is not. Experts can propose their own Kingdoms based on subjective criteria.

Im not suggesting that kingdoms are worthless (we all know a Prokaryote when we see one) but I am saying that a sentence or two could be inserted in this article mentioning this subjectiveness.

At the same time, Cladistics is an alternative approach to naming and organising organisms. It de-emphasizes the paraphyletic groups like Bacteria, and instead focuses on clades, which are not tied into a rigid 7-deep or 8-deep classification nomenclature. Shouldn't this article at least mention cladistics as an alternative that avoids some of the subjectiveness? Or is there a holy war going on in the biology community and it would be inflammatory to contrast the two approaches? I seem to recall that the Cladistics article does mention Kingdoms/Classes approach and has a brief comparison.

Noleander 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Textbooks in the United States
The April 20th, 2008 version of the main article has the following sentences within it:

Currently, textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria), while British and Australian textbooks describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera).

To the best of my knowledge, I always thought that textbooks in the United States were chosen by comittees or even specific teachers in the local schools and colleges, commissioned for the purpose, when schools or colleges and universities are acquiring new textbooks.

At the same time, the content of courses are set through the state mandating 'Lesson Plans', that teachers need to draw up to outline what they are teaching. These to the best of my knowledge have always been set at the State level, not the Federal level. The net result is that in general there is no standard for textbooks at any level within the United States, only standards for the content of courses. If a teacher or professor wanted to use several different books, or even no books and only notes, lectures, or composed handouts, that would be considered quite viable if the lesson plans still held the required categories and the teaching method was still considered to be effective. The content of textbooks are generally set by textbook companies, and if they are too outlandish or fall outside of many state lesson plan content overviews, then schools and colleges simply don't use them and the textbook companies won't be able to sell them. Then again, maybe in recent years the Federal Government has been encroaching more and more on the States with respect to the content of lesson plans.

Is it reasonable that the paragraph should read as follows?

Currently, many textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria), while British and Australian textbooks describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera).

Or has the six kingdom classification somehow been set at the U.S. Federal level in recent times, possibly by mandating lesson plans nation wide, rather than having the states do it as it has been done in the past? This sounds like something that the U.S. Federal government would try to do through scattered legislation and maybe even through the actions of textbook lobbyists, but it also sounds like something that would open a vast litigative can of first amendment worms, that they would ultimately back out of for that very reason.

As for the U.K. and Australia it might be that the content of textbooks is set more directly at some state or national governmental level, I am not sure how it is done in those countries.

4.242.177.39 (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like this section of the entry has gotten screwed up. It now (Sept 14, 2010) reads "Currently, very few textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria) while British, Australian and Columbian textbooks may describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera)."
 * Not only is this the complete opposite of what it said back in 2008, it's also a moderately nonsensical sentence structure: "Whereas few US books have six, most non-US have 5." So what do most US books do? We need some sources and clearer language.
 * Kenirwin/ (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Viruses
Can viruses be addressed (or even mentioned) in this article? Badagnani (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. since nobody has replied or made any entry in 2 years, I guess the answer is no. 124.171.98.111 (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Viruses are generally not considered to be alive (they can't reproduce on their own). Thus, not falling into the "life" category, they can't belong to divisions of it. 128.194.22.133 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Split
The Five kingdom system and the Six kingdom system should be in separate articles. We have Three domain system as a separate article...

The development of top-level taxonomic divisions should also be a separate article.

76.66.195.63 (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We need a really good central article on kingdoms and the development of the different classifications well before we start to think about having separate articles on the different classification schemes. Once this article gets good enough and the sections long enough to be summarized, then we can spin the detail off into daughter articles per WP:SS. --mav (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I also disagree, we need to compare and contrast the different classification systems in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the disagreements, this should remain a single article for now. —johndburger 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection?
Due to the number of vandals I'm wondering whether we should get this page protected from editing by non-wikipedians? Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Text needs editing doesn't make sense now
As it stands now, there's an introductory paragraph and then this:


 * Carolus Linnaeus distinguished two kingdoms of living things: Animalia for animals and Vegetabilia for plants (Linnaeus also treated minerals, placing them in a third kingdom, Mineralia). Linnaeus divided each kingdom into classes, later grouped into phyla for animals and divisions for plants. It gradually became apparent how important the prokaryote/eukaryote distinction is, and Stanier and van Niel popularized Edouard Chatton's proposal in the 1960s.[1]
 * Robert Whittaker recognized an additional kingdom for the Fungi.

Gradually became apparent? Somewhere between Linnaeus and the 1960s, or what? And who's this Chatton and what's his proposal? And then: an additional kingdom? In addition to what?

Mhu? :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 Kingdoms defined isn't clear
The eukaryotes are shown to have 4 kingdoms as of 2007 suggestion which would make 6 kingdoms. That concept isn't summarized or in the lower page table. I'm going to add a summary to the recent advances section. The 6 new(tenuous) kingdoms would be Bacteria, Archaea, Plantae, Opisthokonts, Excavata and SAR. I don't know where that 18 to 30 kingdoms concept cane from although I don't doubt it. Help with a source? alatari/(talk) 08:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Complain from a non specialit
Ok, I'm ready to undertstand that the matter is still in discussion between specialist. I did altough expect some kind of (may be incomplete and/or in discussion) list of phylla per kingdom. What is the use of a classification if it is not to classify ? And what is the use of an Encyclodedia if it is not for a non specialist to get a quick undertanding about a subject ? 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.247.175 (talk)


 * A reasonable complaint, but, alas, as of 2010, there just isn't a published classification which is supported by the most recently published (2008, 2009) phylogenetic research. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think some of the editors of this article are misguided. Generally, classification (of biological organisms) is for one of two purposes: for the layman (and introductory-level students) and for specialists. Another way to state that is classification is either for education or research communication (between experts). There is a failure to communicate when two (or more) editors speak past one another, one arguing about textbook content and the other mentioning what the research literature says. We now know enough to know that we'll never have a perfect classification scheme, and that includes cladistics. Why? Horizontal Gene Transfer. There is a lot of evidence that HGT has occurred between the Animal Kingdom and Bacteria. There is some examples of HGT between Bacteria and Archaea. I am not familiar with any examples of other mixing, but I doubt any major branch of life hasn't "stolen" genes from at least one other branch. And of course the current article says little about viruses, which would require special treatment in order to be excluded from "the Tree of Life", but if included would make the HGT issue even worse. (That is to say, viruses are highly inconvenient.)40.142.183.146 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

recent proposals
Burki's paper doesn't suggest a 6 kingdom system. His work was strictly with eukaryotes, and though he has some new divisions within eukaryota, it's still a 3 kingdom system: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. Jzeise (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This section (Recent proposals) is significantly out-of-date. There is a published classification of the eukaryotes into 6 groups (Adl et al. 2005), which seems to have had some influence, since it was done for the International Society of Protistologists, but the paper deliberately doesn't use formal ranks. Others have treated these groups as Kingdoms within the Domain Eukarya/Eukaryota. I don't think there is a published classification (as opposed to phylogenetic trees) which is supported by work published since 2008. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-write
Since I believed that the article (a) is important (b) was significantly out-of-date, I initially tried re-writing sections. However, I soon found that to remove inconsistencies which have developed over time, a more major re-write was necessary. So I've taken the liberty of being bold. I've tried to retain as much of the existing article as I could. The only parts I've removed are:
 * some duplication in the discussion of Woese
 * a one-sentence mention of the non-use of kingdoms in cladistics.

The latter topic is important, but it needs more than one sentence to discuss the problems of reconciling traditional Linnaean classifications with cladistic/plylogenetic ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've since added a section on Thomas Cavalier-Smith's 6 kingdom classification and modified to include this system. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Craig Venter "invented" ?
Reading news, i found out we have a new kind of life on the planet.

How is this to be organized in the systematics ?--93.199.255.211 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How many kingdoms are there?
There are actually only four kingdoms -animalia, plantea, Protesta and Fungi. There are three domains the simply the Eucayriotes, the modern bacteria and the ancient bacteria.


 * Don't the bacteria need their own kingdom? (I wonder if they have File:Flag of Bacteria.svg or something... :P) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above claim is wrong - there are literally 'dozens of kingdoms! Protista is a group name for over a dozen, maybe two dozen, distinct kingdoms.


 * Domain Bacteria
 * Kingdom Bacteria


 * Domain Archaea
 * Kingdom Archaea
 * Domain Eukarya
 * Kingdoms Protista
 * Kingdom Plantae
 * Kingdom Fungi
 * Kingdom Animalia


 * See my comments below. There are not, "literally", any particular number of kingdoms. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

New Phylum, or possibily even a new Kingdom!
There is a recent discovery of a new Phylum of fungus, a phylum that is so different from all other fungi that some are calling it a new Kingdom See our new article on Cryptomycota. However, there is (understandably) a naming dispute on this article, because the science is so new.

One person suggests that the name Rozellida has been previously given to this clade. I, however, disagree. The following article says this:


 * "The only previously known fungus that the team found to fall within the new group is the genus Rozella — long thought to be an oddity because of its lack of a chitinous cell wall — which diverged from the rest of the fungi very early on. "We thought that the Rozella branch of fungus was just a twig that had hung on over the course of evolution," says James, "but this paper shows us it's part of a whole evolutionary bush."
 * Nature News, Published online 11 May 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.285
 * The evolutionary tree of fungi grows a new branch, Marian Turner
 * http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/news.2011.285.html

Also see the current Wikipedia article Rozella

Let's look for more sources, and discuss this issue further. RK (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Be careful about writing sentences like "How many kingdoms are there?" or "There are kingdoms". They imply that kingdoms are entities which are fixed in number and which are 'out there' to be discovered. The reality is that kingdoms, like all taxa, are human constructs. The number of kingdoms is arbitrary. Give or take lateral gene transfer among prokaryotes, the tree of life (viewed as the full history of the evolutionary process) is 'out there' to be discovered. How the tree of life is to be divided up in a classification is a matter of opinion. In the past there have been periods when there was a scientific consensus on classification at the rank of kingdom, so you could write, as a shorthand, "There are two kingdoms, plants and animals" or "There are six kingdoms". At present there is no such consensus, so you can only write "In X's view of how life should be classified, there are N kingdoms". Furthermore, many biologists (not yet I think a majority, but a significant number) have abandoned or are abandoning the very idea of Linnean ranks, so for them the answer to "How many kingdoms are there?" is "This is a meaningless question because the very idea of kingdoms is obsolete." Peter coxhead (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

International Society of Protistologists Classification 2005
The illustration in this section is illegible -- virtually invisible -- black and faint, dark red on a very dark gray background. Indeed, at first I thought the illustration box was empty. Surely there must be a better, more legible rendering of this chart somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Woese vs. Mayr
Isn't there a debate that has raged, sometimes rather heatedly, in the biology and evolution journals for 10-20 years between Carl Woese and Ernst Mayr over the classification and division of the "tree of life"? Shouldn't that discussion be party to this article? Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think these two are rather out of date now. I guess more historical stuff could be added if anyone has time and energy. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mayr is dead but his position regarding the classification is still defended by Cavalier-Smith, viz. holophyly or paraphyly is irrelevant for the validity of a taxon (this taxon can be a kingdom or an empire/domain). --Iossif63 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Too much prominence to Cavalier-Smith?
Cavalier-Smith is one of the few who have continued to publish formal classifications at the top levels of the tree of life; most other researchers seem content to produce phylogenetic trees but not convert these into classifications. So it's inevitable that his views will have to feature significantly in this article. However, there seems to me to be little evidence that his classifications have been widely adopted; almost no-one supports his rejection of the prime importance of the Archaea-(Eu)bacteria divide. I think that as it stands the article could be accused of violating WP:UNDUE. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are free to add any published megaclassification you may know. As it is written in the article, Cavalier-Smith's classifications are not widely adopted. However they are influencial and widely discussed. I don't think that discussing Cavalier-Smith's classifications violates anything. Gupta rejects the archaebacteria-eubacteria divide as well, replaced by a monoderm-diderm dichotomy similar to the Negibacteria-Unibacteria dichotomy of Cavalier-Smith. --Iossif63 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Holophyly
"Holophyletic" is not an obsolete term. Pretending otherwise is a violation of neutrality. Especially when discussing the classification of Cavalier-Smith where we also need the concept of monophyly in its real sense (sensu Haeckel, Simpson, Mayr). Please stop edit this word. I think that the controversy should be mentioned in the article Monophyly as it is in the French article Monophylie. --Iossif63 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been argued over at length in the English Wikipedia (and led to the banning of one user). I certainly don't want to get into an edit war over it. Of course the term should be mentioned in the Monophyly article – I thought it was. But it should not be used as the general term in articles; to do so is definitely to violate WP:NPOV, and has been accepted as such in previous disputes. To say that the "real" sense of monophyly is what is holophyly + paraphyly (sensu earlier authors) simply does not reflect the current consensus of usage in the biological community. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your last edit. Trust my good faith: my problem was that if you just say on Wikipedia "Cavalier-Smith does not accept the requirement for taxa to be monophyletic" (oh bad guy!) and then a reader goes to Cavalier-Smith's articles and finds a sentence like "only monophyly is required" he would be very confused. Your edit seems to conveniently solve the problem. About the "consensus", it can be argued that there is in fact no consensus at all, but a long war of position in which the dominant side claims to have won. Cavalier-Smith is not the only relict of the other side, see Zander's work for example. But you are certainly aware of all of this since you said it has been discussed at length. Who was that banned user? --Iossif63 (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree with Cavalier-Smith about not requiring taxa to be monophyletic (so I don't see him as a bad guy in this respect) and I also think that it would have been clearer if "monophyly" had not come to mean "holophyly". I'm pretty sure that the dominant side has won on the second issue, but I'm hopeful that it hasn't had total victory on the first. (The banned user is Mats Envall.)
 * I thought I had added the table at User:Peter_coxhead/Work/Phyletic terminology to at least one article, but if so, I can't find it in article space now. I think this table or something like it should really be included in Monophyly, Paraphyly and Holophyly, so long as these are separate articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this table is a good idea. Maybe the articles Holophyly/Monophyly/Paraphyly/Polyphyly should be merged in something like "Phyl(ogen)etic relationship". --Iossif63 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Several of us who have discussed these articles agree that they should be merged. However, it has proved very difficult to agree on, source and explain the definitions. It's an item on my to-do list to get back to... Peter coxhead (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink in title?
The wikilink (to evolutionary systematics) I just added in the subtitle of a section was deleted. Is there a problem in wikilinking in a title? The title was also shortened, is there any objection to the fact that the six-kingdom system of TCS represents the current proposal of modern evolutionary systematics about megaclassification? --Iossif63 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The third bullet point of LINKSTYLE says "Section headings should not themselves contain links". One of the many WP rules hidden away in the Manual of Style and its subpages!
 * It's not WP:NPOV to say that Cavalier-Smith's system is "the current proposal of modern evolutionary systematics". It's a proposal. His non-recognition of the magnitude of the divide between the (eu)bacteria and archea is out of line with almost all other published work I've seen, so it's not even a mainstream proposal. Of course, if you could find someone other than Cavalier-Smith who says this of his system, you could add it to the article with the reference, but I still wouldn't put it in the section heading, which I think is best kept strictly neutral. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the point. The recognition of the divide between eubacteria and archaebacteria is not "evolutionary systematics", it is "phylogenetic classification" (as it is named by themselves, i.e. the cladists). I am not saying that Cavalier-Smith's system is "the current proposal of modern systematics", which is obviously not a NPOV. Mainstream proposals are off topic here since they are cladist proposals, not evolutionary proposals. It seems that in English the word "evolutionary" is confusing, it must not be understand in its usual meaning, it has a specific meaning in the expression evolutionary systematics as it refers to a specific school of systematics to which Cavalier-Smith belong. I am sorry, this confusion is not a problem in French, "evolutionary" is usually translated by "évolutif" but it is "évolutionniste" in "systématique évolutionniste". --Iossif63 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that, as you say, there are some linguistic problems here (not just the English "evolutionary" but the strong force of "the" in English).
 * It's certainly fine to say that Cavalier-Smith's classification is an evolutionary classification rather than a strict cladist classification. However, the current mainstream three-domain system is not a cladistic one either. As is well-known, if you treat the eukaryotes as derived primarily from an archaean ancestor, the Archaea are paraphyletic w.r.t. to Eukaryota, whereas if you treat them as derived from both an archaean and bacterial ancestor, then there isn't a tree on which to define a clade – and if this is ignored, both Archaea and Bacteria are paraphyletic w.r.t. Eukaryota. So all current classifications at the root of the tree of life are, as far as I know, evolutionary rather than cladistic. The difference between Cavalier-Smith's classification at this level and the others rests on the lack of importance he attaches to the Archaea – Bacteria difference in determining taxon boundaries, not on the fact that his classification is evolutionary and the others are strictly cladistic, because they're not.
 * (There are phylogenetic analyses which support a two-domain model which could possibly be regarded as strictly cladistic – see e.g. – but is there a formal classification based on them?) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interessant article. I agree that a two-domain model could be strictly cladist, i.e. holophyletic eubacteria versus holophyletic neomura. However even here, they mention the potentially paraphyletic "Archaea" as a domain, thus unintentionally stressing the inconsistency of cladism. Your analysis goes in the same direction, as I am about to explain. The three-domain system was proposed by Woese on the assumption of the holophyly of the three domains. Thus, Woese created an influential paradigm based on cladist dogma. Recent researches, even if they challenge the holophyly of the domains, still operate inside this paradigm. Even if they are not strictly cladists, because of pragmatism, they are the heirs of Woese. As a proof, none of these researchers would recognize themselves as belonging to the school of "evolutionary systematics". Rather than that, they recognize themselves as the heirs of Hennig's school, even if not strictly applying its dogmatic principles. On the other side, Cavalier-Smith explicitly acknowledge the legacy of Mayr's school, he sustain evolutionary taxonomy against Hennig and Woese. So its model is fundamentally evolutionary whereas those of the other researchers are based on cladist dogma, just not strictly applied. The fact that its inconsistency, which forces nevertheless to loosely apply its principles, is not recognize proves that these researchers belong to the school of cladism. Any system proposed by a researcher belonging to a certain school of systematics should be classified into this specific school, even if it doesn't rigorously respect its principles. The recognition of the divide between eubacteria and Archaebacteria is widely due to legacy rather than a real evolutionary meditation on the split between these body plans. It is this type of meditation that allow to classify a proposal in the school of evolutionary systematics, not trees. The only other proposal I am aware of is that of Gupta, which proposes a split of Prokaryota in Monodermata (archaeans and gram pos eubacteria) and Didermata (gram neg eubacteria), exactly like Cavalier-Smith's split in Unibacteria and Negibacteria. --Iossif63 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree that the strictly cladist approach to biological classification is a mistake, although I don't find Cavalier-Smith's particular classification appealing. However, the issue remains what to put in the article to ensure that it respects WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You wrote "Any system proposed by a researcher belonging to a certain school of systematics should be classified into this specific school, even if it doesn't rigorously respect its principles." Within Wikipedia, this can only be done if there are sources which explicitly support the classification into a school, otherwise it's WP:OR. There have been problems in the English Wikipedia in the past (and some remain) where supporters of strictly cladist approaches and the PhyloCode have inserted biassed and/or inadequately sourced material. But it would be equally wrong for supporters of other approaches to do this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So be it. I understand your point of view concerning WP:OR. If I ever encounter a source which explicitly classify these systems I will certainly add them. This is off topic but may I ask you why you don't find TCS's classification appealing? --Iossif63 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynn Margulis
I am a non-specialist who is reading "Symbiotic Planet" (1998) by Lynn Margolis. It seems to me that she merits some mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.209.188 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lynn Margulis is not mentioned in this section on the 5-kingdom theory. When she essentially discovered the endosymbiont theory of the eukaryotic cell, she promoted the 5-kingdom system, almost single-handedly bringing it out of its coffin. I was privileged to see her original films showing symbiotic bacteria, and heard her speak to our small class in microbial ecology at MBL in 1982.  At that time, the 5-kingdom theory was not in the high school textbooks.  I am pressed for time, but I could write something, sometime.  She is a giant in the field; not to mention her is almost criminal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.145.192 (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Margulis is now mentioned in the article, Five kingdoms section. Pol098 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Archaea and Bacteria
Archaea and Bacteria are both separate domains of life. But on the page Kingdom (biology), there is a note that 'currently textbooks from the US use a system of six kingdoms', and Archaea and Bacteria are among them. Can you explain why in widely accepted bacterial classification there is a note about that fact kingdoms are not included in Bacteria nomenclature, but on our list about kingdoms the Bacteria are considered both a kingdom and domain. And the second question: what is the most widely accepted classification of organisms in the world (not in the USA)? Please help! User02062000 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My view is that at present there is no universally (or even widely) accepted classification of life at this level, certainly not kingdoms. Most of the recent (say last 5-10 years) research published on the evolutionary origins (phylogenetics) of the deepest divisions of life just presents trees (cladograms) and does not attach ranks like "domain" or "kingdom" to the branches. It may be that in long run we will simply stop using such ranks. They seem to be increasingly meaningless to many biologists.
 * As an example, the last attempt I'm aware of at a consensus classification at this level is the 2005 one described at Kingdom (biology). This explicitly did not name the top level groups "kingdoms" (although other people later did). However research published after 2005 suggests that some of the six eukaryote groups aren't the right ones.
 * Textbooks haven't yet caught up with this revolution in thinking, and school textbooks in particular tend to reflect syllabuses approved some time in the past. (Further, in the US there's a problem with evolutionary approaches in schools.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. But if we don't include phylogenetics, then what system of classification is most widely accepted in the world (For example, it can be Whittaker's system or Woese' 1977 six-kingdom system (not three-domain, which was published later in 1990)? Please explain! User02062000 (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. How could this question be answered?  You'd have to survey textbooks round the world. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! User02062000 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tree of Life
If instead of calling it the tree of life, we rename it something appropriate to the question it tries to answer:  from where did we come? Remember at one time we thought we simply came from chimps and apes, which for some reason a lot of people considered distasteful? Then we discovered mammals and plants came from bacteria, so then it was all right. Perhaps the origin of life. I’m unable to draw the tree, but these would be the branches:

400,000 years ago we evolved into our current form, homo homo sapiens. 2.5 million years ago we evolved into the genus we call homo. 65 million years ago we evolved into primates. 380 million years ago we evolved into animals. 3.7 billion years ago we evolved into bacteria. 13.798 ± 0.037 billion (what we call) years ago we came into being.

Just a thought 108.205.30.247 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a tricky relationship between this article and the "tree of life" in terms of the origin of species. This article is about a particular rank in a classification system; sure, what goes into the divisions at this rank (i.e. kingdoms) is influenced by phylogeny, but they aren't the same issue. So your comments don't really belong here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The image "Phylogenetic and symbiogenetic tree of living organisms, showing the origins of eukaryotes & prokaryotes" has plants coming from both protists and bacteria, this seems strange--please explain. Chaquarius (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In a very brief summary, it's because plant cells are derived from eukaryotic protists and contain plastids derived from cyanobacteria. The diagram also shows that earlier the mitochondria in plant (and animal) cells were derived from archaea. That's what the "symbiogenetic" bit of the caption means. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Kelp
Since everything else that had one was given a common name in the article, I gave one to Kelp, which was listed with a scientific one only.Ericl (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Five kingdom model
Did Robert Whittaker propose the five kingdom model in 1959 or 1969? Both dates are used in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. 69.4.235.91 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Over Representation of Cavalier Smith
I think this section needs to be removed. I also think there should be a separate article for the historical developments to clarify the article. Theropod (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cavalier Smith and Viruses
Hi. I removed the section on Cavalier Smith. I think the section dealing with Viruses could be moved to the Domain page. This article still needs major cleaning and editing to accurately convey important information to uninformed readers. Theropod (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This needs more discussion, so I've undone what I'm assuming was your edit (although it shows up as an IP). Yes, I think there's too much on Cavalier Smith,  he's one of the few who actually propose classifications to the level of Kingdoms, which is the topic of the page, so it's hard not to have him prominent. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kingdom (biology)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kingdom (biology)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Woese": From Bacteria:  From Archaea:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

History or science?
I have found I have had to organise, into some comprehensible summary, the voluminous patchwork of information and articles on these pages regarding taxonomy myself, and I am keenly aware both of the time this has taken me and of my unsuitedness to the task. In hindsight the problem with the wiki articles seems to me to be an obsessive regard for historical developmental accounts and detailed scientific notes at the expense of clarity regarding the current state of knowledge in the field. A small example (if any were needed) comes from the plethora of diagrams on this page. There is what seems to me to be an admirable (if rather technical) diagram of the six kingdoms but nothing regarding the seven kingdom model section that follows it. Although after days of burrowing around I feel I have arrived at a summary understanding, I think such a thing should be readily available to a reader without this and within moments of their beginning to read the key article here on biological taxonomy. IMHO it is not wiki's role to provide a lengthy chalk 'n talk education course on the subject but to present information in the most clear, concise and comprehensive manner possible. To achieve this with regard to (biological) taxonomy surely the historical account should be separated from expositions on current knowledge. At present the two are tangled together, in a bloat of contradiction and conflict when the articles are looked at as a whole, that, barring the many regular but perfunctory health warnings, is simply thrown at readers for them to make of it what they might. It all seems to be more of a display of clever erudition than an encyclopaedic work. As I say I am unqualified for the task, but I would like to split history from current consensus, finishing the former with a precis of the latter and vice versa. LookingGlass (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article has serious problems, but I'm not sure there's an easy solution. The core issue is that the concept of a "kingdom" as a formal rank now longer really works. The "state of knowledge" consists of our current understanding of the tree of life. This is still changing, although perhaps now more slowly. Deciding where in the tree to call the subtrees "kingdoms" is entirely abitrary, and not of much interest to many biologists. So it could be argued that the entire article is really only historical. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Peter coxhead. Do you have a reference for what you write. If so ... you could add what you've written (which is very clear) into the article's introduction. LookingGlass (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is (as I think has been said somewhere above) that "lack of interest" means "limited or no sources". One result is that those who are interested in rank-based classifications, like Cavalier-Smith, get undue attention in the article. We have to keep looking, but at present I only find the negative, i.e. if I look at journal articles on the deep phylogeny of life, I find lots of trees, sometimes with clade names, but few if any formal ranks. It's a general problem – how do you source a lack of interest? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency between Domain / Kingdom articles.
Domain starts: "a domain is the highest taxonomic rank of organisms". Kingdom starts: "is the third highest taxonomic rank, just below domain". 96.90.245.69 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Chhandama (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to Lock Article?
Hi. I think we should lock this article. It is subject to a high degree of vandalism and that makes improving it, which is a very important task, difficult to do.

Do we agree? Can we put this to a vote? I think we should have a serious talk about this.

Thank you. Theropod (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree.  Enigma msg 


 * Thanks for your time. --Theropod (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hemimastigotes
Where do they fit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How confident are we of the origin of mitochondria?
"As mitochondria were known to be the result of the endosymbiosis of a proteobacterium..." My understanding is that this is only a good (almost certainly correct) hypothesis, but less of an established fact than the text makes it sound. NCBioTeacher (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

word order
It's the animalia kingdom, not kingdom animalia.
 * No, the style which is most common throughout organism articles and elsewhere is the "animal kingdom", but "kingdom Animalia". An Google search for the exact phrase "kingdom animalia" gave me about 2,140,000 hits versus 287,000 for "animalia kingdom". Peter coxhead (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Which kingdom has the greatest number😍
What is the percent of it 41.114.222.39 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at which discusses this. Basically it looks like there might be vastly more animals than anything else. 8.7 million estimated eukaryote species, with an estimated 7.7 million animals.
 * With the prokaryotes, the estimate is 11,000. But species is a bit harder to define with prokaryotes, as when one species ends and another begins is more a case of convention than anything else. For example, take a look at the Escherichia coli -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Aristotle and Theophrastus
I wonder why Aristotle wrote in English and his pupil in Latin. --142.163.194.38 (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So should we be using the original Greek titles for both instead of the English translation for Aristotle and the Latin translation for Theophrastus?
 * WP:COMMONNAME suggests to me using the Latin translation as the title of both works. In both cases, Google gives more hits for the Latin title + author surname than the English title + author surname. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Leeuwenhoek
In the 3 Kingdoms section, the claim:"Until then, the existence of such microscopic organisms was entirely unknown." referring to knowledge before the invention of the microscope is at best a bit misleading and at worst just plain wrong. It's a tautology that before we were able to observe microscopic life, we didn't observe microscopic life. The problem I see (I'm being a bit nit-picky) is that various microscopic life-forms have a macroscopic form. Take, for instance the slime molds. Both Myxogastria and the Dictyostelids have visible forms which were certainly observed before the microscope. That is, the organisms were known, but their microscopic stages couldn't be observed. Whether anyone believed the observable forms arose spontaneously or from the aggregation/fusion of "too-small-to-be-seen" precursors is anyone's guess. I note that there are many examples of swarming and aggregation of macroscopic organisms which could hint that microscopic organisms existed and were known in antiquity. Anyway, the sentence needs revision (or just simply eliminate it). What everyone alive in 1600 knew isn't known today, we can speak about the record, we might even speak about the popular/dominant Aristotelian spontaneous generation theory even though it was subject to increasing criticism/doubt. I also note that magnifying lenses were available before his invention of the microscope, but I'm not competent to speculate whether microorganisms could have been observed before his 1670's invention (optical clarity was a significant problem).40.142.183.146 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the phrase is written in a very subjective way. I'd simply delete it. —Snoteleks 🦠  17:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)