From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Italic text

	Kingdom (biology) is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 kingdoms 2 == 2.1 Bacteria ----- Archaea ----- Eukarya (Domains) 2.1.1 Bacteria ----- Archaea ----- Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista 2.2 Six Eukaryotic Kingdoms 2.3 They Lack a Nucleus 2.4 Extra table 2.5 additional thoughts and suggestions 2.6 Seven Kingdoms 2.7 Inaccuracy! 2.8 Mention Cladisitics? Subjectiveness? 2.9 Textbooks in the United States 2.10 References

[edit] kingdoms

• 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

fuck head

   Class ε-Proteobacteria

   Class α-Proteobacteria

   Class ß-Proteobacteria

   Class γ-Proteobacteria

   Class δ-Proteobacteria

DOMAIN ARCHAEA

Phylum Crenarchaeota

Phylum Euryarchaeota

DOMAIN EUKARYA <nowiki>Insert non-kidrock</nowiki>

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)

[edit] ==

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 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.

[edit] Bacteria ----- Archaea ----- Eukarya (Domains)

[edit] 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:

Haeckel (1894)	Whittacker (1969)	Woese (1990)	Six kingdoms
Protista	Monera	Bacteria	Bacteria
		Archaea	Archaea
	Protista	Eukarya	Protista
Plantae	Fungi		Fungi
	Plantae		Plantae
Animalia	Animalia		Animalia

---

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

	Autotrophic		Heterotrophic
	Chemosynthetic	Photosynthetic	Mobile	Sessile
Prokaryotic Cells	Kingdom Archaea	Kingdom Eubacteria	Kingdom Eubacteria	Kingdom Eubacteria	Unicellular
Eukaryotic Cells	Not found on earth.	Kingdom Protista	Kingdom Protista	Kingdom Protista	Unicellular
				Kingdom Fungi
Eukaryotic Cells	Not found on earth.	Kingdom Plantae	Kingdom Animalia	Kingdom Fungi	Multicellular

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

Note: Due to Template:Biological systems, some reference names are shared between this article, Monera, and that template. Please keep the content of the reference tags in sync. —Random832 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)