Consequences of Creating New

Kingdoms of Organisms
John O. Corliss
Numerous taxonomic-nomenclatural problems arise when more than two kingdoms
of eukaryotic organisms are recognized. The current international codes of botanical
and zoological nomenclature are inadequate, especially for a kingdom Protista that
embraces many groups of species conventionally considered ("mini") plants or ani-
mals, but which definitely are not. Should the two codes be modified, united, or re-
placed by separate ones for every major kingdom proposed and accepted? Another
problem discussed is tbe (unnecessary) proliferation of new names for redefined or
reshuffled high-level taxa. (Accepted for publication 28 December 1982J
Although there has been a rash of
heuristic proposals in recent years to
increase the number of kingdoms of or-
ganisms inhabiting the planet Earth, few
published papers have focused attention
on the inevitable nomenclatural effects
of shifting certain major taxa out of the
classicaland still often conventionally
accepted (e.g., see Parker 1982)pair of
eukaryotic kingdoms, Plantae and Ani-
malia. Notable exceptions are the works
by Cavalier-Smith (1978, 1981) and Jef-
frey (1982), but they treat the topic in no
depth. The problems involved are wor-
thy of the attention of all biologists,
HISTORY OF HIGH-LEVEL
CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES
There were no particular nomenclatur-
al troubles in the eighteenth, nineteenth,
and well into the twentieth centuries
while only the two-kingdom system ex-
isted. The plant kingdom embraced the
bacteria (and even viruses), the algae,
and the fungi, in addition to the multicel-
lular green plants. The animal kingdom
included unicellular forms, the protozoa,
as well as the great invertebrate and
vertebrate groups of the metazoa (the
latter, in the broadest sense, covering
the parazoa and mesozoa as well). As
Corliss is with the Department of Zoology, Universi-
ty of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. This
article is based on an invited lecture given before the
Botanical Society of Washington at its 649th meet-
ing held in Washington, DC, on 7 September 1982.
O 1983 American Institute of Biological Sciences.
All rights reserved.
314
cytological, ultrastructural, biochemical,
and molecular techniques became avail-
able and were applied with greater so-
phistication, striking differences among
the "lower," unicellular organisms and
between them and the "higher" plants
and animals became apparent. The dif-
ferences were so great that "overview"
taxonomic generalists and evolutionary
biologists could hardly be content with
continuation of the superficial lumping of
all life into two simple kingdoms. Such a
dichotomy was, after all, originally
based on studies that had primarily em-
ployed the larger multicellular organisms
as the representative forms, species that
also, incidentally, lent themselves to
easy preservation as macroscopic type-
specimens, material so important no-
menclaturally. Historical accident, plus
perhaps a good measure of authoritarian-
ism and complacency, was largely re-
sponsible for the over-long perpetuation
of an outmoded classification system at
the highest level.
The elite among plant and animal tax-
onomists, working in special institutes,
in botany or zoology departments of
major universities, or in the great herbar-
ia and museums of the nineteenth centu-
ry, established the rules and held the
power to maintain them. Shortly after
the turn of the present century, the for-
mal International Code of Botanical No-
menclature and International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature came into be-
ing (Corliss 1982a), and names of all
organisms related to the lower taxonom-
ic levels, notably genera and species.
were and are still controlled by provi-
sions of these universally accepted rules.
Not until some 50 years later were sepa-
rate codes established for bacteria and
viruses. All four are periodically revised
and updated. (The most recent editions
available are cited alphabetically in the
"References Cited.")
In modern times, probably the sitigic
most significant taxonomic-evolutionar)'
action, mostly to be credited to Roger
Stanier and colleagues about two dec-
ades ago, has been to recognize the
extremely clear separation of prokaryol-
ic (bacteria sensu lato) from eukaryotic
(all other) organisms. This allowed sup-
port of a three-kingdom biotic world,
considering plants and animals as king-
dom-level components of the second
"superkingdom," if you will, with uni-
cellular monerans alone comprising the
first. Great though this advance was,
however, it failed to take into account
the possible wisdom of additional sepa-
ration of the mainly unicellular eukaryot-
ic microorganisms (the protists) frotnthe
multicellular plants and animals and of
the unique fungi from the green platits.
Although I concentrate on the problems
of the protist assemblage (well over
120,000 species strong), a rather similar
case could be made for the fungi; further-
more, some of the so-called lower fungi
are considered by many researchers to-
day to be protists. I have generally omit-
ted further treatment of the bacteria
here. Finally, I join numerous modern
biologists in characterizing the viruses as
acellular organisms, with organism itself
perhaps being an inappropriate word for
them, thus excluding them from all other
forms of life, the (uni- or multi-) cellular
organisms.
Although Ernst Haeckel, more than
100 years ago, was the first to propose a
kingdom named Protista, the name and
the notion fell largely into disrepute, or
at least disuse, until the 1960s and '70s.
BioScietice Vol. 33 No.5
except for the valiant attempt of re-
searchers like Copeland (1956) at mid-
century (see also Moore 1954). Today's
Icingdom Protista (e.g., Wbittaker and
Margulis 1978), for those who accept it,
is much more refined than Haeckel's,
excluding all kinds of bacteria and mis-
cellaneous small multicellular groups
and including principally the major eu-
karyotic taxa identifiable as algae, proto-
zoa, and "lower" fungi (see Corliss
1981). The other eukaryotic kingdoms
range in number from two to several,
depending on the author, but a popular
number is three; the Plantae, the Fungi,
and the Animalia.
Incidentally, the superkingdom Pro-
karyota, may, like the Eukaryota, con-
tain from one to several kingdoms; in
any case, the Monera are typically ac-
cepted as the principal (if not the only)
one, though the Archaebacteria have
gained wide support as a separate king-
dom (Woese 1981). (Readers interested
in a further discussion of the prokaryotes
and of the origin of eukaryotes from
prokaryotes should see JefiFrey 1982,
Margulis 1974, 1981a, Margulis and
Schwartz 1982, Whittaker and Margulis
1978, and many references therein.)
No codes attempt to control the no-
menclature of the high-level taxa consid-
ered here. But if the species (and genera
and, often, families) formerly assigned to
a particular kingdom (and thus named
under the appropriate code) are shifted
to a different one today, or if they have
been contained concurrently in more
than one kingdom in the past, then no-
menclatural confusion arises over such
"trapped" forms. Nevertheless, species
of fungi, of the so-called blue-green algae
(actually prokaryotic cyanobacteria),
and of other small groups evoke similar
problems, if on a lesser scale.
The differences that exist between the
two "eukaryotic" codes, the Interna-
tional Code of Botanical Nomenclature
and the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (see treatment in the con-
venient booklet by Jeffrey 1977) are nu-
merous and often subtle or understood
only by specialists in nomenclature. Yet,
is likely that their origin has been
unintentional, reflecting long-separated
independent paths in their historical de-
velopment. Even the "year zero" of the
two codes is different; 1753 for (most)
plants (including algae and fungi) and
1758 for animals; these dates are impor-
''"t in establishing priority of names.
Botanists are required to describe new
^Pecies in Latin; zoologists are not. In-
fraspecific taxa are treated quite differ-
May 1983
ently. Some of the rules regarding synon-
ymy and homonymy vary significantly
(from legalistic points of view). The
whole "type concept" is not a uniform
one for the two codes. Plant scientists
recognize divisions as the highest taxa
within a kingdom; zoologists call them
phyla. And so on. Revisions in the
codes, until very recently, have been
made without regard for provisions of
"the other one" that may be treating the
same subject or problem.
RESOLUTION OF CODE-RELATED
NOMENCLATURAL PROBLEMS
There are a number of possible options
available to solve the obvious taxonom-
ic-nomenclatural problems arising from
any new multikingdom arrangement of
the biotic world (specifically, expansion
from two to three or more kingdoms
within the superkingdom Eukaryota). I
am indebted to Ride (1982) for his men-
tion of four possible solutions or ap-
proaches listed in a brief report (on no-
menclature of organisms treated as both
plants and animals) delivered in August
1982 before the 21st General Assembly
of the International Union of Biological
Sciences (LU.B.S.) But, in the^ critical
discussion below, I have modified Ride's
points somewhat to accord with my own
views on the subject.
A Single Unified Code
This has been called the "ecumenical
approach." Cavalier-Smith (1978) urged
its production several years ago. But the
unlikelihood of its success stems from
the large number of major and minor
changes that would have to be effected in
the present international codes of botani-
cal and zoological nomenclature alone to
bring it into being. Such revisions, espe-
cially if retroactive, would obviously
wreak havoc on hundreds of past actions
taken by taxonomic botanists and zoolo-
gists. Nomenclaturists from both groups
already experience difficulty enough
agreeing among themselves (working
within a single code) without being ex-
posed to the challenge of a truly ecu-
menical approach! Yet, ideally, this pro-
posal probably represents the best
solution as a long-term goal. Some biolo-
gists are even thinking (perhaps quite
naively?) that the single nomenclatural
code could embrace the prokaryotes as
well (i.e., incorporate provisions suit-
ably substituting for rules comprising the
present International Code of Nomen-
clature of Bacteria).
New and Separate Codes for Every
Eukaryotic Kingdom
For the Protista, this would mean a
code tailored to the needs of taxonomists
working (mainly) with algae and proto-
zoa, typically unicellular, microorga-
nisms whose lower taxa do present prob-
lems sometimes poorly resolved by the
conventional botanical and zoological
rules. Still, many of its provisions would
or should be identical to those already
present in the two relevant existing
codes, which almost brings us back full
circle to the preceding proposal. Phycol-
ogists who have faithfully followed the
botanical code would hardly agree to
major changes, and the same could be
said of protozoologists trained originally
as zoologists and thus nurtured on the
zoological code. Furthermore, until pro-
tistologists, a hybrid group themselves,
can agree on the exact composition and
boundaries of their newly revived king-
dom, they can hardly decide what groups
of species should be transferred from
their former nomenclatural jurisdictions
to a new code. Nevertheless, this solu-
tion may someday be feasible and justifi-
able. And it has an undeniable "pioneer-
ing" appeal.
Harmonizing Existing Codes on a
Case-by-Case Basis
From a pragmatic and short-range ap-
proach, at least, this idea has much in its
favor. Botanists, at their recent Interna-
tional Botanical Congress held in Syd-
ney, Australia, have already taken some
steps in this direction, proposing emen-
dations or modifications in provisions of
their code that perinit recognition of cer-
tain names accepted under the zoological
code (see Silva 1980). To be successful
on a large scale, however, as Ride (1982)
points out, coordinated action would be
required under both codes, returning us
nearly to the ecumenical approach dis-
cussed under tbe first proposition. But
the proposal should be further pursued
by everyone involved, and in a coopera-
tive and constructive way. It is unclear
whether the bacterial code is implicated
here. I foresee great difficulties, howev-
er, in bridging the gap between tbe great
superkingdoms Prokaryota and Eukar-
yotanomenclaturally and taxonomically.
Arbitrary Allocation to Existing
Codes
Taxa within any newly established eu-
karyotic kingdom might be allocated to
315
jurisdiction under one or the other of the
two existing codes. Both Cavalier-Smith
(1981) and Jeffrey (1982) have formally
made this proposal. But, to me, this
appears to be the weakest of all possible
solutions. It fiies in the face of now-
recognized basic interrelationships
among many protist groups, and it is a
backward step since, in efFect, it contra-
dicts some major classificatory points
that various protistologists are trying to
make. For example, numerous high-level
groups of protists are more closely relat-
ed to each other than they are to groups
within either one of the two kingdoms
with which they have been traditionally
associated; various algal assemblages
are phylogenetically closer to certain
protozoan taxa than they are to other
conventional algal groups; and, similar-
ly, some protozoa are more like algae
than protozoa in the traditional sense.
The same could be said, on a less grand
scale, for protist relationships of the so-
called lower fungi (the essentially unicel-
lular aquatic forms with flagellated
stages in their life cycles).
The whole raison d'etre of recognizing
a kingdom Protista is to unite great mass-
es of taxonomically similar organisms
(> 120,000 species) within a single group
phylogenetically set apart from plants
and animals. Arbitrarily insisting that
subgroups of such microorganisms, of-
ten formerly called "phyla" by chance,
must be treated as "minianimals" no-
menclaturally (simply because "phy-
lum" is a zoological term), and sub-
groups called "divisions" must ipso
facto be considered "miniplants" (since
"division" is a botanical category), de-
nies completelyand irrationallytaxo-
nomic distinctness of the protists sensu
lato as a kingdom in their own right.
Furthermore, such a proposal appears to
totally ignore the fact that many identical
species of unicellular forms are included
simultaneously in high-level taxa called
divisions by some practicing biologists
and phyla by others. To me, therefore,
this highly arbitrary fourth suggestion,
which at best maintains the status quo, is
hardly a practicable option.
A soon-to-be-appointed, broadly
based committee of the I.U.B.S. will be
expected to study these problems. It
may propose additional solutions beyond
the few discussed here. The committee
might be well advised to pay particular
attention to the third proposition above
(ntiodification of the codes on a case-by-
case basis) because its application could
bring swift relief to students of such
a group as the dinoflagellates, long
316
plagued as these researchers have been
by the impossible task of complying with
provisions of two different codes at the
same time. In the long run, however,
some compromise along the lines of the
first or second proposition will probably
have to be reached.
COMPOSITION OF
KINGDOM PROTISTA
Consideration of any resolution to the
taxonomic-nomenclatural problems that
are seldom realized by many zoologists
or botanists to even exist requires some
appreciation of the overall composition
of such a "new" (unconventional) eu-
karyotic kingdom as the Protista or the
Protoctista, as some prefer. (The latter
name was proposed by Hogg several
years before the date of Haeckel's Pro-
tista, and the group is defined to include
unicellular forms and certain allegedly
multicellular derivatives as well; Margu-
lissee citations belowparticularly fa-
vors Protoctista over Protista, though for
many of us a little stretching of the
"Protista concept" allows use of this
shorter and more euphonious name for
essentially the same total assemblage of
organisms.) Relevant recent papersnot
all of which, admittedly, endorse the
kingdom Protista concept'include the
works by Cavalier-Smith (1978, 1981),
Corliss (1981), Dodge (1979), Jeffrey
(1982), Margulis (1981a,b), Margulis and
Schwartz (1982), Ragan and Chapman
(1978), Round (1980), Sleigh (1979),
Stewart and Mattox (1980), Tappan
(1980), Taylor (1978), Whittaker (1977),
Whittaker and Margulis (1978). The
reader must refer to them for details.
Each has some unique contribution to
make. Interestingly enough, most of
these authors, like many others today,
were stimulated to enter the field follow-
ing such earlier works as those by Dod-
son (1971), Jeffrey (1971), Leedale
(1974), Margulis (1970), and Whittaker
(1969).
The number of protist phyla (or divi-
sions) contained in the works listed
above ranges from a dozen or so to the
three dozen tentatively proposed by me
(Corliss 1981, 1982b). In the latter paper
I created no new formal names, but used
only vernacular terms associable win
existing taxonomic groups (currently a
infraphyletic levels) (e.g., foraminifer-
ans, eumycetozoa, hyphochytriotny-
cetes, labyrinthulids, euglenoids, chloro-
phytes, chrysomonads, opalinids,
sporozoa, dinofiagellates, ciliates, myx-
ozoa). As pointed out especially clearlji
by Taylor (1978) and Corliss (1981),
many of these groups cannot be sep-
arated from each other at highest
levels by evolutionary or phylogetietit
criteria.-
I fervently urge that no attempt be
made to establish taxonomic subking-
doms or superphyla within the Protista
until considerably more work of a com-
parative nature has been carried out on
the assemblages involved. The "proto-
zoalgal" (Corliss 1981) group, in particu-
lar, must be studied further. Included
here (as the compound names imply) are
the forms (dinoflagellates, eugletioids,
haptomonads, chrysomonads, some
chlorophytes, and a few others) that
have long been called and claimed as
algae by the botanists and protozoa by
the zoologists. A parallel situation exists
within an assemblage that I call the "pro-
tozofungal" group. My kingdom Protista
of 36 tentative phyla (Corliss 1982b) thus
completely embraces some 12 major taxa
conventionally accepted as protozoa, I
of algae, and 3 of ("lower") fungi, as
well as the groups referred to above. Id
of the "protozoalgal" forms and 4 "pro-
tozofungal"^ forms,
PROLIFERATION OF NEW NAMES
FOR HIGH-LEVEL TAXA
As previously mentioned, no code
controls the nomenclature of taxa above
the generic or familial levels. Thus
names of orders up through kingdoms
themselves can be proposed by anyone
wishing to do so; how these names sur-
vive is purely up to later users and
reviewers. But I have decried (see espe-
cially Corliss 1972) what seems tobei
totally unnecessary proliferatiott of
names for groups of organisms that, even
when their taxonomic compositioti has
been somewhat altered, have perfecllyj
'A number of biologists, perhaps particularly phy-
cologists (intiuenced by the reasoning of Leedale
1974), prefer to think of the unicellular protists as
representing merely an evolutionary grade, a level of
structural organization, rather than a discrete inde-
pendent taxonomic unit. No one denies that the
"higher" eukaryotic groups must have arisen from
various protist progenitors; but I believe that such
an assumption is satistied by either concept with
resect to the status of the overall protist assemblage.
2A single outstanding example is the euglenopb!''
group, recently postulated (e,g., see Cavalier-Snii
1981, Corliss 1981, Taylor 1978) to contain noloni
the mainly pigmented and free-living "algal *
noids of the classical literature but also Ihe "pr
zoan" vertebrate-blood parasites known as Ihe W
panosomes and now, since 1981, the remarkable^
little-known ciliate-turned-flagellate StephimofOt-
(Corliss and Lipscomb 1982, Lipscomb and Corr
1982),
BioScietice Vol. 33 No.-^
good labels available in the older litera-
mre. Indeed, there is a plethora of usable
names, complete with authors and dates,
that would preclude tbe necessity of cre-
ating new ones wholesale. Why propose
"Euglenozoa," "Di nozoa, " "Viridi-
plantae," " Phyt obi ot a, " "Pr ot i st o-
bionta," and the like, as seen in such
papers as those by Cavalier-Smith (1981)
and Jeffrey (1982)?
These five sample appellations created
for top-level taxa are clearly already
represented by time-honored names that
even offer some choice, without adding
still newer ones. For tbe first two
(above), there already exists Euglenoida
(or Euglenophyta) and Dinoflagellata (or
Pyrrhophyta) or variants of these names.
For the third and fourth, the tried-and-
true Plantae would essentially suffice for
either or both of the proposed words; for
the last name. Protista (or Protoctista)
would serve very well, negating the need
forthe novel "Protistobionata." Author-
ships (with dates) are readily available
for such well-known groups from the
standard literature.
Our diagnoses and characterizations
of major taxa will constantly be changing
and improving as we acquire additional
data of relevance. Should every exten-
sion or refinement, every loss or gain of
certain subtaxa, set the stage for justifi-
cation of a new name (followed, of
course, by the name of the new author
and the date of his/her new paper)?
At least during the current fever of
widespread and multiple revisions at
kingdom and phyletic levels, I suggest
the use of either vernacular names (a
safe and inoffensive approach) or of ex-
isting names (a sensible as well as cour-
teous approach) that best represent tbe
recharacterized high-level group. At
times, new names will be required, but
rather rarely. If for no other reason, the
proposers should think of the unfavor-
able, even damaging, and certainly dis-
couraging effect that dozens of new
names will have on students and teach-
ers alike who are earnestly trying to keep
abreast of developments in the field.
Thus, protozoologists could lay claim to phyla
ranging in number from 12 to 26. Contrast this with
Ine single phylum "Prot ozoa" of very long standing
the literature or even with the seven of the recent
and widely accepted "Levine Report " (Levine et al.
0). See details in Corliss (1981); but I am not in
avor of the continued recognition of "Prot ozoa, "
*''n a capital P. at any formal taxonomic level
PHylum. superphylum, subkingdom, kingdom, or
I ^^=r. The "prot ozoan" groups are, by and
wse. inextricably commingled with "al gal " and
r groups and thus have, in my opinion, no
ll phylogenetic or taxonomic integrity of their
May 1983
MAJOR MULTiKINGDOMS IN
RECENT LITERATURE
The recent papers by Cavalier-Smitb
(1981) and Jeffrey (1982) contain infor-
mation relevant to some of tbe overall
multiple-kingdom problems presented
here. Jeffrey offers a comprehensive re-
view of modern works affecting king-
dom-level classification of organisms
and proposes a novel taxonomic system.
His scheme would recognize three king-
doms of eukaryotes: the plants, fungi,
and animals. But witb respect to protists
sensu lato, he offers a unique subdivision
of the plants (the Pbytobiota) into four
subkingdoms named the Protistobionta,
the Chromobionta, the Chlorobionta,
and the Rhodobionta. The first, tbe only
protists for him, contains nine divisions
(essentially classical groups of motile
algae plus two of "lower" fungi) and 10
phyla (the more or less "standard"
groups of protozoa). His second sub-
kingdom (total of five divisions) is com-
prised of mostly "yellow-brown" algal
groups and a few other taxa (all protists
in my opinion). And his third (another
five divisions), the plants, runs the gam-
ut from the classical "green" algae (pro-
tists for me) up tbrough the angio^perms.
The fourth, as the name implies, is re-
stricted to the enigmatic red algae, which
I agree may deserve a unique high-level
position, though I include them tenta-
tively at only phylum level in my ex-
panded Protista assemblage (Corliss
1981, 1982b).
Jeffrey's (1982) paper mentions no-
menclatural matters, though all too brief-
ly. Unfortunately, as I view the prob-
lems involved, the one great weakness of
his classification scheme is his surprising
inclusion of protists as "plants" and bis
drastic splitting of them into widely scat-
tered sections of his curious plant king-
dom. The weakness of his nomenclatural
solution, discussed above, is his ex-
tremely arbitrary separation of groups to
be considered under the two existing
codes solely by virtue of their past taxo-
nomic treatment, the very treatment that
many of us today are attempting to prove
is entirely inadequate in view of all tbe
newly accumulated comparative data on
protists and the existence of sophisticat-
ed statistical methodologies (e.g., cladis-
tics) applicable to study of their likely
phylogenetic interrelationships.
Cavalier-Smith's (1981) work is proba-
bly the most iconoclastic of all, to date,
with respect to multiplication and reshuf-
fling of kingdoms of organisms. Many of
his conclusions and proposals are truly
thought-provoking and deserve careful
attention. He is willing to recognize nine
kingdoms of the superkingdom Eukar-
yota (the Eufungi, Ciliofungi, Animalia,
Biliphyta, Viridiplantae, Euglenozoa,
Protozoa, Cryptophyta, and Chromo-
phyta). For me (Corliss 1981), the pro-
tists are scattered among eight of these.
Cavalier-Smitb suggests tbat names of
organisms within the Animalia, Proto-
zoa, and Euglenozoa be subject to the
International Code of Zooloi>ical No-
menclature and species and genera of the
remaining six kingdoms fall under the
botanical code. This nomenclatural pro-
posal is not unlike that of Jeffrey's, and 1
object to it for the same reasons.
In my own preliminary work (e.g.,
Corliss 1981) and thinking to date, I
endorse and support to a large degree tbe
somewhat simpler and more direct
scheme of Lynn Margulis and tbe late
Robert Whittaker (e.g., see Margulis and
Schwartz 1982, Wbittaker and Margulis
1978) for division of the biotic world into
kingdoms. They recognize and define
five of them (Monera, Protoctista, Fun-
gi, Animalia, Plantae) with a total of
some 90 included phyla, 27 assignable to
their protist assemblage (the Protoc-
tista). They have seldom created new
high-level names (to their credit, in my
opinion), but they make no mention of
codes of nomenclature.
Protistologists or other biologists ea-
ger to erect and/or define new kingdom-
level groups might well keep in mind tbe
potential consequences of their propos-
als for such taxonomic-nomenclatural
problems as those presented here. In due
time, workable solutions of some kind
must be found and agreed on by bota-
nists and zoologists alike, as well as by
that relatively new breed of biologists
bearing tbe perhaps uneasy label of pro-
tistologist. However, the eventual out-
look is not, in my opinion, too discourag-
ing. In fact, this period of a "Protist
Revolution," taxonomically speaking, is
an exciting time to be around!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support of National Science Founda-
tion grant DEB 79-23440 is gratefully
acknowledged. I also appreciate having
had the opportunity to discuss certain
aspects of this paper with numerous col-
leagues: pbycologists, protozoologists,
mycologists, cell biologists, botanical
and zoological nomenclaturists (includ-
ing fellow members of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomencla-
ture during our recent meetings with
317
Mammals of
the Northern
Great Plains
J. Knox Jones, Jr.,
David Montgomery,
Robert S. Hoffman, and
Clyde Jones
Designed for a wide range of
readers, this comprehensive treat-
ment of the biology of free-living
mammals of the northern plains
wili fascinate ail observers of animal
life, while also supplying profes-
sionals with previously unavailable
data for the species of this region, x,
383 pages. $32.50
A Synopsis of
Northern American
Desmids
Part II:
Desmidiaceae: Placodermae
Section 5,
The Filamentous Genera
Hannah Croasdale,
Carlos E. de M. Bicudo, and
G. W. Prescott
This fifth and final section of the
definitive Synopsis of Motih
American Desmids is concerned
with filamentous genera of fresh-
water algae. Of Section 1, British
Phycology states, "The value of the
book as a reference point cannot
be overstressed. vi, 117 pages.
$26.50
University of
Nebraska Press
901 N. 17th Lincoln 68588
I.U.B.S. in Ottawa, Canada), and sever-
al genuine protistologists. I am solely
responsible, however, for all remarks
and recommendations made in the text
of this article.
REFERENCES CITED
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1978. The evolutionary
origin and phylogeny of microtubules, mi-
totic spindles and eukaryote flagella. Bio-
Systems 10: 93-114.
" 1981. Eukaryote kingdoms: seven or
nmti BioSystems 14: 461-481.
Classification and Nomenclature of Viruses.
1979. Third Report of the International
Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Inter-
viroiogy 12: 129-296.
Copeland, H. F. 1956. The Classification of
Lower Organisms. Pacific Books, Palo
Alto, CA.
Corliss, J. O. 1972. Common sense and cour-
tesy in nomenclatural taxonomy. Syst.
Zooi. 21: 117-122.
1981. What are the taxonomic and
evolutionary relationships of the protozoa
to the Protista? BioSystems 14: 445-459.
_. 1982a. The history and role of nomen-
clature in the taxonomy and classification
of organisms. Pages 1065-1066 in S. P.
Parker, ed. Synopsis and Classification of
Living Organisms, Vol. 2. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
. 1982b. Numbers of species compris-
ing the phyletic groups assignable to the
kingdom Protista. Abstract. J. Protozooi.
29: 499.
Corliss, J. O. and D. L. Lipscomb. 1982. Es-
tablishment of new order in kingdom Protis-
ta for Stephanopogon. long-known "cili-
ate" revealed now as flagellate. Abstract.
J. Protozooi. 29: 294.
Dodge, J. D. 1979. The phytoflagellates: fine
structure and phylogeny. Pages 7-57 in M.
Levandowsky and S. H. Hutner, eds. Bio-
chemistry and Physiology of Protozoa, Vol.
1, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York.
Dodson, E. O. 1971. The kingdoms of orga-
nisms. Syst. Zooi. 20: 265-281.
Internationai Code of Botanical Nomencla-
ture. 1978. Adopted by the Twelfth Interna-
tional Botanical Congress, Leningrad,
1975. International Association for Plant
Taxonomy, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
International Code of Nomenclature of Bac-
teria. 1975. American Society for Microbi-
ology, Washington, DC.
Internationai Code of Zoological Nomencla-
ture. 1964. 2nd ed. Adopted by the Eif-
teenth International Congress of Zoology,
London, 1958. International Trust for Zoo-
logical Nomenclature, London.
Jeifrey, C. 1971. Thallophytes and king-
domsa critique. Kew Buli. 25: 291-299.
1977. Bioiogicai Nomenclature. 2nd
ed. Crane, Russak & Co., New York.
_. 1982. Kingdoms, codes and classifica-
tion. Kew Buli. 37: 403-416.
Leedale, G. E. 1974. How many are the king-
doms of organisms? Taxon 23: 261-270.
Levine, N. D., J. O. Corliss, F. E. G. Coj
G. Deroux, J. Grain, B. M. Honigberi
G. E. Leedale, A. R. Loeblich, IILJ.L
D. Lynn, E. G. Merinfeld, F. C. Page.G
Poljansky, V. Sprague, J. Vdvra, and F. C
Wallace. 1980. A newly revised classificj
tion of the Protozoa. J. Protozooi. 27:3".
58.
Lipscomb, D. L. and J. O. Codiss. 1982.
phanopogon, a phylogenetically importam
"ciliate," shown by ultrastructural studisi
to be a fiagellate. Science 215: 303-304.
Margulis, L. 1970. Origin of Eukaryotic Cek
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
1974. The classification and evolutioi
of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Pages Ml
in R. C. King, ed. Handbook ofGeneth,
Vol. 1. Plenum Press, New York.
1981a. Symbiosis in Cell Evoiutm:
Life and Its Environment on the Eatk
Earth. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
1981b. How many kingdoms? Cun-enl
CIRCLE NO. 69 ON THE READER'S SERVICE CARD
views of biological classification. Am.Biol
Teacher 43: 482-489.
Margulis, L. and K. V. Schwartz. 1982. fm
Kingdoms: an Illustrated Guide to tiiePk-
la of Life on Earth. W. H. Freeman, Sai
Francisco.
Moore, R. C. 1954. Kingdom of organisms
named Protista. J. Paleontot. 28: 588-598.
Parker, S. P., ed. 1982. Synopsis andClass$-
cation of Living Organisms. 2 vols.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ragan, M. A. and D. J. Chapman. 1978. J
Biochemical Phylogeny of the Protists. Ac-
ademic Press, New York.
Ride, W. D. L. 1982. Nomenclature of orga
nisms treated both as plants and animals,
Bioi. Int. 6: 15-16.
Round, F. E. 1980. The evolution of pigmenl-
ed and unpigmented unicellsa reconsider-
ation of the Protista. BioSystems 12: 61-K
Silva, P. C. 1980. Remarks on algal nomen-
clature VI. Taxon 29: 121-145.
Sleigh, M. A. 1979. Radiation of the eukary-
ote Protista. Pages 23-54 in M. R. House,
ed. The Origin of Major Invertebrm
Groups, Systematic Association Speciil
Vol. 12. Academic Press, New York.
Stewart, K. D. and K. Mattox. 1980. Phylof
eny of phytofiagellates. Pages 433-462 is
E. R. Cox, ed. Phytofiagellates. Elsevier
North-Holland, New York.
Tappan, H. 1980. The Paieobiology ofPlm
Protists. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco,
Taylor, F. J. R. 1978. Problems in the devel-
opment of an explicit hypothetical phyloge-
ny of the lower eukaryotes. BioSystems 19
67-89.
Whittaker, R. H. 1969. New concepts of kint
doms or organisms. Science 163: 150-lft
1977. Broad classification: the kinf
doms and the protozoans. Pages 1-34 f
J. P. Kreier, ed. Parasitic Protozoa, Vol, 1
Academic Press, New York.
Whittaker, R. H. and L. Margulis. 1978. Pro-
tist classification and the kingdoms of orga
nisms. BioSystems 10: 3-18.
Woese, C. R. 1981. Archaebacteria. 5c/-
244: 98-122.
BioScience Vol. 33 No. 5