Charles J. O'Kelly
okellyc at megasun.BCH.UMontreal.CA
Fri Jan 26 23:05:38 EST 1996
In article <4ebsr1$eih at daily-planet.nodak.edu> comstock at plains.nodak.edu (Clay Comstock) writes:
>I was wondering if anyone out there could tell me which of these is the
>current system for grouping the Sarcomastigophora.
one Phylum, two Phyla
> Sub-Phyla Sarcodina
> Super-Class Actiopoda
> Super-Class Rhizopoda
> Sub-Phyla Mastigophora
> Class Phytomastigophora
for a treatment that accepts "Sarcomastigophora" and gives what
was, at the time, considered an accurate treatment of it, see:
Lee JJ, Hutner SH, Bovee EC (eds.). 1985. Illustrated Guide to the
Protozoa. Society of Protozoologists, Lawrence, Kansas.
however, since about then an increasing number of protistologists
have recognized that "Sarcomastigophora" is an "unnatural"
group, consisting not of one monophyletic lineage but dozens of
separate ones (paraphyletic group).
>If neither of these two are current what is the current taxonomic grouping?
there is little consensus (other than "Sarcomastigophora" is wrong),
because the underlying phylogenies are difficult to recover. for
some differing opinions, see:
Margulis L. et al. (eds.) 1989(1990). Handbook of Protoctista. Jones and
Cavalier-Smith T. 1993. The kingdom Protozoa and its 18 phyla.
Microbiological Reviews 57: 932. (from memory - the volume and
page numbers might be in error).
Maddison, W and D (eds.) Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Navigator
for the Internet. http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/phylogeny.html
O'Kelly CJ, Littlejohn T. Protist Image Data.
okellyc at bch.umontreal.ca
More information about the Protista