Hi Barrie,
On classification I noticed this in WoRMS: Capilloventrida /
Capilloventridae / Capilloventer / 2 species. Such a structure up to
order based on two species is a little hard to defend as necessary.
So, if that content is actually true, then maybe that order at least
could go? We are forced to rank everything in WoRMS, but 'incertae
sedis' is useful as a parking place to avoid creating empty ranks for
minor taxa. Overall the clitellates appear to have too much structure,
and too many higher ranks and families as your own 1988 paper
(introducing 'Metagynophora') and the James & Davidson 2012 paper
seems to show (forgive me, but this is my impression).
There probably won't be much practical effect of the Ruggiero et al
article on WoRMS at least, as CofL defers to WoRMS specialist editors
below phylum level. WoRMS is still using 'Oligochaeta'. You would
have to talk to the editor to see if he wants to change that (I see he
used it in the title of a 2013 paper).
I too cannot see a clitellate-specific paper cited in the sources.
Best,
Geoff
On 9 May 2015 at 8:04, Barrie Jamieson wrote:
> Dear Geoff,
> The Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms to which you
alerted us is a valiant attempt but I am not sure why it claims to
represent a consensus. For oligochaetous annelids there appear to be
no references to the main workers in the taxonomy of the group and it
is particularly noteworthy that the results of the excellent molecular
analysis by James and Davidson "Molecular phylogeny of earthworms
(Annelida: Crassiclitellata)...." in Invertebrate Systematics 26 (2)
213-229, appear to have been ignored. As the title of that paper
suggests the group Crassiclitellata, which you say in the errata
should be deleted, is strongly supported as is much of what you term
"The weird structure and names of the Clitellates " and I am uncertain
why "what remains is more recognisable to Annelid workers." The author
of one of the few recent terms to survive - Metagynophora - is not
referenced and the correction of the obsolete Order Opistophophora to
Opistophora should be to Opi!
> stophora, though no longer recognized.
> I regret that great caution would be needed in using the suggested
clitellate classification.
> Kind regards,
> Barrie Jamieson
>
> Emeritus Professor BGM Jamieson
> School of Biological Sciences
> University of Queensland
> St. Lucia
> Brisbane
> Queensland 4072
> Australia
>
> Mailing address:
> Phone 61 (0)7 54461716
> http://barriegmjamieson.com
> ________________________________________
> From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu
[annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] on behalf of Geoff Read
[Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:31 PM
> To: ANNELIDA
> Subject: Re: [Annelida] Higher Level Classification of All Living
Organisms
>
> It seems they've made a number of errors in the Table in the pdf as
published. There's an errata published in the comments.
>
> http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=86195
>
>
>
> The weird structure and names of the Clitellates goes, and what
remains is more recognisable to Annelid workers.
>
>
>
> It's apparently correct in the Excel version of the table which is
S1 Appendix. However I can't understand how errors known about on 18
March, remained in the published PDF version of the end April launch
>
>
>
> Here's the annelid erratum
>
>
>
> 8. In Animalia: Annelida, Suborder Metagynaphora should be spelled
Metagynophora and its Order Opistophophora should be spelled
Opistophora. Orders Apododrilida, Capilloventrida, and
Crassiclitellata should be deleted. Order Branchiobdellida should be
moved within Clitellata, Subclass N.N.
>
>
>
> They did use WoRMS Polychaeta & Annelid as a source, together with
a couple of Greg's papers, and a paper of Goto's placing Echiura in
Annelids. Also the Struck et al 2007, 2011,
>
> Rousset 2007 papers. Linking the relevant papers to the relevant
table entries would have been a good idea . I'd have tried to have
something like that.
>
>
>
> They pretty much follow what is current in WoRMS for traditional
Polychaeta. A work in progress.
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: James Blake <jablake9 from gmail.com>
> Sent: 01 May 2015 12:11
> To: Geoff Read; ANNELIDA
> Subject: Re: [Annelida] Higher Level Classification of All Living
Organisms
>
>
> Well, this effort by the CoL guys is going to start quite a few
conversations. I barely got past the plants, but note the Phylum
Mollusca:
>
> Putting the chaetoderms and solenogastres into separate classes
seems a bit much. The taxon Aplacophora is not used.
>
> Phylum Mollusca
> Class Caudofoveata
> Order Chaetodermatida
> Class Solenogastres
> Superorder Aplotegmentaria
> Order Cavibelonia
> Order Sterrofustia
> Superorder Pachytegmentaria
> Order Neomeniamorpha
> Order Pholidoskepia
>
> In contrast the Annelida seems overly simplified.
> Jim
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Geoff Read
<Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz<mailto:Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms.
> Here's what the CoL guys came up with.
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119248
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net<mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
> Resources: http://www.annelida.net
>
>
>
> --
> James A. Blake, Ph.D.
> Aquatic Research & Consulting
> 24 Hitty Tom Road
> Duxbury, MA 02332
> CELL: 508-277-2760
> E-Mail: jablake9 from gmail.com<mailto:jablake9 from gmail.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
> Resources: http://www.annelida.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
> Resources: http://www.annelida.net
