To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

African elephants form the genus Loxodonta, a widely accepted taxon.

In biology, a taxon (back-formation from taxonomy; pl.: taxa) is a group of one or more populations of an organism or organisms seen by taxonomists to form a unit. Although neither is required, a taxon is usually known by a particular name and given a particular ranking, especially if and when it is accepted or becomes established. It is very common, however, for taxonomists to remain at odds over what belongs to a taxon and the criteria used for inclusion, especially in the context of rank-based ("Linnaean") nomenclature (much less so under phylogenetic nomenclature).[1] If a taxon is given a formal scientific name, its use is then governed by one of the nomenclature codes specifying which scientific name is correct for a particular grouping.

Initial attempts at classifying and ordering organisms (plants and animals) were presumably set forth long ago by hunter-gatherers, as suggested by the fairly sophisticated folk taxonomies. Much later, Aristotle, and later still, European scientists, like Magnol,[2] Tournefort[3] and Carl Linnaeus's system in Systema Naturae, 10th edition (1758),[4], as well as an unpublished work by Bernard and Antoine Laurent de Jussieu, contributed to this field. The idea of a unit-based system of biological classification was first made widely available in 1805 in the introduction of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Flore françoise, and Augustin Pyramus de Candolle's Principes élémentaires de botanique. Lamarck set out a system for the "natural classification" of plants. Since then, systematists continue to construct accurate classifications encompassing the diversity of life; today, a "good" or "useful" taxon is commonly taken to be one that reflects evolutionary relationships.[note 1]

Many modern systematists, such as advocates of phylogenetic nomenclature, use cladistic methods that require taxa to be monophyletic (all descendants of some ancestor). Their basic unit, therefore, the clade is equivalent to the taxon, assuming that taxa should reflect evolutionary relationships. Similarly, among those contemporary taxonomists working with the traditional Linnean (binomial) nomenclature, few propose taxa they know to be paraphyletic.[5] An example of a long-established taxon that is not also a clade is the class Reptilia, the reptiles; birds and mammals are the descendants of animals traditionally classed as reptiles, but neither is included in the Reptilia (birds are traditionally placed in the class Aves, and mammals in the class Mammalia).[6]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    2 737 686
    8 827
    4 495
    839 997
    91 051
  • Taxonomy: Life's Filing System - Crash Course Biology #19
  • Difference between Hierarchy,Category and Taxon (or Definition of Hierarchy,Category and Taxon)
  • What is Different taxa at same level ? | Differences between Taxon and Category | The Living World |
  • TAXONOMIA SISTEMÁTICA: CLASSIFICAÇÃO DOS SERES VIVOS | QUER QUE DESENHE? | DESCOMPLICA
  • Taxonomy and Taxonomic Hierarchy (Biological Classification of Living Things)

Transcription

Taxonomy! It's the science of classifying living things. That sounds exciting. Today we'll basically be learning the Dewey Decimel System of evolution! It's like filing! You must be on the edge of your seat. OK, shut up. When it comes down to it, this science doesn't just categorize organisms, when you look a little deeper, you realize it's telling the story of all life on earth. And it's a pretty good story. Every living thing on this planet is related to every other living thing. If you go far enough back, we all have a common ancestor. An organism that both you and I are descended from. Or something that a star fish and a blue whale are descended from. Or, even weirder, that an oak tree and a salmon are both descended from. That organism lived. It lived very long ago. But it was here. And I dig that. The trick of taxonomy, is basically figuring out where all those branches of the evolutionary tree are, and finding some convenient labels to help us understand all of these remarkable interrelationships. Let's be clear though, taxonomy isn't about describing life in all of it's ridiculous detail, it's mostly about helping humans understand it, because it's way too complicated without structure. To get that structure biologists use the taxonomic system to classify all the organisms on the Earth. It's sometimes called the Phylogenetic Tree, or the Tree of Life, and it illustrates the evolutionary relationships between all living species. There are about 2 million known species, but there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species scientists really have no freaking idea. New species keep getting discovered all the time, and the more organisms we have to keep track of, the more complex the Phylogenetic Tree becomes. So, there's not always a consensus about how to classify this stuff. There's a lot of gray area in the Natural World. Actually, let me rephrase that: the Natural World is one giant Gray Area. Sometimes it's just hard to know where to put a certain group of organisms, and eventually the group gets so big, the classification system has to be messed with to make room for it. So, the system isn't perfect, but it's good enough that we've been using it for around 250 years. [Sniffing] What's that? Do you smell a Bio-lography coming on? Carl Linnaeus was a Swede born in 1707. And early in his career as a botanist he realized that the botanical nomenclature of 18th century Europe was.. well, just crap. For instance, in his day, the "formal" name of a tomato plant was Solanum caule inerme herbaceo, foliis pinnatis incisis, racemis simplicibus. Linnaeus actually said once, "I shudder at the sight of most botanical names given by modern authorities." Not only did this sloppiness bother him, he saw a whole sugarstorm blowing in: New plants were still being discovered in Europe, but that was nothing compared to the crazy stuff that was coming from the New World. Linnaeus saw that pretty soon, naming conventions were just going to collapse under all these new things to name. And THEN what? Linnaeus famously started off by naming himself. He came from a peasant family, and at the time, surnames were just for rich people, so when Carl went to college, they asked him for his surname and he just made one up: Linneaus, after the Linden trees that grew on his family's homestead. Linnaeus got a medical degree and became a professor at Uppsala University where he devoted himself to the study of nomenclature. He had his students go places and bring back specimens for him to study and categorize. The method he eventually adopted was based on morphology, or physical form and structure. This wasn't necessarily a new idea. Back then, people grouped organisms by analogous or homoplasic traits, structures that appear similar but actually come from completely independent origins. By this definition, birds would be more closely related to butterflies than to reptiles because birds and butterflies can both fly. But Linnaeus had a good mind for this stuff and turned out to have a real knack for choosing actual homologous traits for his classification system traits that stem from a common evolutionary ancestor. Linnaeus didn't know jack about evolution Darwin wouldn't come around for another 100 plus years but he just intuited that some traits were more important than others. For instance, he was struck by the fact that reproductive apparatus seemed to be a good way of classifying plants. He also caused a scandal by classifying the Class Mammalia based on the female's ability to produce milk from their nipples. Because apparently that was pretty racy stuff back then. In his lifetime Linnaeus catalogued roughly 7,700 plants and 4,400 animals, and he published his classifications in a catalog called Systema Naturae, which by the time he wrote the 12th edition, was 2,300 pages long. In the meantime, Linneaus actually adopted a personal motto: "God created, Linnaeus organized." Although taxonomy has come a long way since Linnaeus, we still use a bunch of the conventions that he invented. For instance, we still arrange things into taxa, or groups of organisms, and we still us the same Taxa as Linnaeus: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. We also still use Linnaeus' convention of binomial nomenclature using a unique, two-part name for every species the genus and species name, in Latin or Latin-ish. This practice actually started back in the Middle Ages when educated people were expected to know Latin. We know a lot less latin now, but we know a lot more about evolution which Linnaeus didn't. And we have technologies like genetic testing to classify relationships between organisms. And yet we still use Linnaeus's morphology-based system because genetic evidence generally agrees with classifications that are made based on structure and form. However, because there was a lot of life that Linnaeus had no idea about, we had to stick a new taxa above Linnaeus' Kingdom. We call it Domain. And it's as broad as you can get. The Domains are Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. The bacteria and archae are prokaryotes, meaning their genetic material goes commando with no nucleus to enclose it. While the Eukarya make up all the life forms with a nucleus and include pretty much all the life that you think of as life, and quite a lot of the life that you don't think about at all. It might seem like, since all macroscopic life only gets one domain, it's kinda silly to give prokaryotes two and for a long time, we didn't. We didn't divide them up into different domains. They hung out together in a single domain called Monera. But it later became clear that Bacteria, which live pretty much everywhere on earth, including inside of you and deep in the Earth's crust, and Archaea which are even more hardy than bacteria, have distinct evolutionary histories. Archaea being more closely related to eukaryotes and, yes, thus me and you. They have totally different cell membranes and the enzymes they use to make RNA, their RNA polymerase, is much more like ours. Under the domain Eukarya, which is by far the most interesting and even occasionally adorable domain, we have Kingdoms: Protista, Fungi, Plantae and Animalia. Now, scientists have settled on these four. For now. But these are categories that are a human creation, but there are good reasons for that human creation. The unscientific truth is that we looked at life and divided it up based on what we saw. So we were like, "Well, protists are single-celled organisms, so, they're very different from the rest of the domain. Plants get their energy from the sun and fungi look and act very different from plants and animals, and we already know what animals are, so they have to get their own kingdom." And though scientists are loathe to admit it, that system of just looking and dividing things up actually worked pretty well for us. Not perfectly, but pretty well. But there's a reason why this worked so well. Evolutionarily, there are actual categories. Each of these kingdoms is a huge branch in the tree of life. At each branch, an evolutionary change occurred that was so massively helpful that it spawned a vast diversity of descendents. Plants or Plantae are the autotrophs of the Domain Eukarya. Autotrophs meaning that they can feed themselves, through photosynthesis of course. Their cellulose-based cell walls and chloroplasts giving them a distinct difference from all other multi-cellular life. There are two other sorts of -trophs. The heterotrophs, which get their energy by eating other organisms. And Chemotrophs, which are weird and crazy and only show up in bacteria and achaea, and they get their energy from chemicals. Now the kingdom Protista is weird because it contains both autotrophs and heterotrophs. Some protists can photosynthesize, while others eat living things. Protists are basically a bunch of weird, eukaryotic single-celled organisms that may or may not be evolutionarily related to each other scientists are still trying to figure it out. Some are plant-like, like algae, some are more animal-like, like amoebas, and some are fungus-like, like slime molds. Protists are one of those gray areas I was telling you about. So don't be surprised if, by the time you're teaching this to your biology students, there are more than four kingdoms in Eukarya. Fungi, which are, you know—the funguses. They include mushrooms, smuts, puffballs, truffles, molds, and yeasts and they're pretty cool because they have cell walls like plants, but instead of being made of cellulose, they're made of another carbohydrate called chitin, which is also what the beak of a giant squid is made out of, or the exoskeleton of a beetle. Because fungi are heterotrophs like animals, they have these sort of digestive enzymes that break down their food and get reabsorbed. But they can't move, they don't require a stomach for digestion they just grow on top of whatever it is they're digesting and digest it right where it is. Which is super convenient! And finally, we have Kingdom Animalia. Which is the lovely kingdom that we find ourselves and 100% of adorable organisms in. Animals are multicellular, always. We're heterotrophic, so we spend a lot of our time hunting down food because we can't make it ourselves. Almost all of us can move, at least during some stage of our life cycle. And most of us develop either two or three germ layers during embryonic development, wait for it... ...unless you're a sponge. So like I said, we use this taxonomic system to describe the common ancestry and evolutionary history of an organism. Looking at the phylogenetic tree, you can tell that humans are more closely related to mice than we are to fish, and more closely related to fish than we are to fruit flies. So how about we pick an organism and follow it all the way through the taxa, from kingdom to species, just to see how it works. I know! Let's pick this kitty. Because I know she'd like it. Right, cat? So, kitties have cells that have nuclei and membrane surrounded organelles. And they're multicellular and heterotrophic and have three germ layers of cells when they're embryos, so they're in the kingdom Animalia. And they have a spinal cord running down their backs, protected by vertebrae, and disks in between them. And they have a tail that doesn't have a butthole at the end of it like a worm, which I'm really glad about. And that puts her in the phylum Chordata. Kitty clearly does not like this, so I'm going to put her down now. And the kitty lactates and gives birth to young like a cow, instead of laying eggs like a chicken, and they have fur and three special tiny bones in their ears that only mammals have, so they're in the class Mammalia. So, she is more closely related to a cow than a chicken. Good to know! And like a bunch of other placental mammals that eat meat like weasels (the mustelids), and dogs, (the canines), kitties are in the order Carnivora. And they're in the cat family, Felidae, whose members have lithe bodies and roundish heads and, except for cheetahs, retractable claws. And they're littler than tigers and panthers, which puts them in the genus Felis. And then, at the level of the species, the descriptions get pretty dang detailed, so let's just say that, you know what a cat is right? So the species name is catus. And look at that: Felis catus! Aw. Kitty. I could have that whole thing cross-stitched onto a pillow for you to sleep on! And it would be cute! Thank you for watching our taxider- I mean, our taxonomy episode of Crash Course Biology. We hope that you learned something. Thanks to everybody who helped put this episode together. If you have any questions for us, please leave them on Facebook or Twitter or in the comments below. And we will get to them. Hopefully very quickly. I will see you next time!

History

The term taxon was first used in 1926 by Adolf Meyer-Abich for animal groups, as a back-formation from the word taxonomy; the word taxonomy had been coined a century before from the Greek components τάξις (táxis), meaning "arrangement", and νόμος (nómos), meaning "method".[7][8] For plants, it was proposed by Herman Johannes Lam in 1948, and it was adopted at the VII International Botanical Congress, held in 1950.[9]

Definition

The glossary of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) defines[10] a

  • "taxon, (pl. taxa), n.
A taxonomic unit, whether named or not: i.e. a population, or group of populations of organisms which are usually inferred to be phylogenetically related and which have characters in common which differentiate (q.v.) the unit (e.g. a geographic population, a genus, a family, an order) from other such units. A taxon encompasses all included taxa of lower rank (q.v.) and individual organisms. [...]"

Ranks

LifeDomainKingdomPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenusSpecies
The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

A taxon can be assigned a taxonomic rank, usually (but not necessarily) when it is given a formal name.[citation needed]

"Phylum" applies formally to any biological domain, but traditionally it was always used for animals, whereas "division" was traditionally often used for plants, fungi, etc.[citation needed]

A prefix is used to indicate a ranking of lesser importance. The prefix super- indicates a rank above, the prefix sub- indicates a rank below. In zoology, the prefix infra- indicates a rank below sub-. For instance, among the additional ranks of class are superclass, subclass and infraclass.[citation needed]

Rank is relative, and restricted to a particular systematic schema. For example, liverworts have been grouped, in various systems of classification, as a family, order, class, or division (phylum). The use of a narrow set of ranks is challenged by users of cladistics; for example, the mere 10 ranks traditionally used between animal families (governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)) and animal phyla (usually the highest relevant rank in taxonomic work) often cannot adequately represent the evolutionary history as more about a lineage's phylogeny becomes known.[citation needed]

In addition, the class rank is quite often not an evolutionary but a phenetic or paraphyletic group and as opposed to those ranks governed by the ICZN (family-level, genus-level and species-level taxa), can usually not be made monophyletic by exchanging the taxa contained therein. This has given rise to phylogenetic taxonomy and the ongoing development of the PhyloCode, which has been proposed as a new alternative to replace Linnean classification and govern the application of names to clades. Many cladists do not see any need to depart from traditional nomenclature as governed by the ICZN, International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, etc.[citation needed]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ This is not considered as mandatory, however, as indicated by terms for non-monophyletic groupings ("invertebrates", "conifers", "fish", etc).

References

  1. ^ Cantino, Philip D.; de Queiroz, Kevin (2000). International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode): A Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press. pp. xl + 149. ISBN 0429821352.
  2. ^ Magnol, Petrus (1689). Prodromus historiae generalis plantarum in quo familiae plantarum per tabulas disponuntur (in Latin). Montpellier: Pech. p. 79.
  3. ^ Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de (1694). Elemens de botanique, ou Methode pour connoître les plantes. I. [Texte.] / . Par Mr Pitton Tournefort... [T. I-III]. Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale. p. 562.
  4. ^ Quammen, David (June 2007). "A Passion for Order". National Geographic Magazine. Archived from the original on August 27, 2008. Retrieved 27 April 2013.
  5. ^ de Queiroz, K & J Gauthier (1990). "Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names" (PDF). Systematic Zoology. 39 (4): 307–322. doi:10.2307/2992353. JSTOR 2992353.
  6. ^ Romer, A. S. (1970) [1949]. The Vertebrate Body (4th <-- ed.). W.B. Saunders. pp. –>.
  7. ^ Sylvain Adnet; Brigitte Senut; Thierry Tortosa; Romain Amiot, Julien Claude, Sébastien Clausen, Anne-Laure Decombeix, Vincent Fernandez, Grégoire Métais, Brigitte Meyer-Berthaud, Serge Muller (25 September 2013). Principes de paléontologie. Dunod. p. 122. ISBN 978-2-10-070313-5. La taxinomie s'enrichit avec l'invenition du mot «taxon» par Adolf Meyer-Abich, naturaliste allemand, dans sa Logik der morphologie, im Rahmen einer Logik der gesamten Biologie (1926) [Translation: Taxonomy is enriched by the invention of the word "taxon" by Adolf Meyer-Abich, German naturalist, in his Logik der morphologie, im Rahmen einer Logik der gesamten Biologie (1926).]{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Meyer-Abich, Adolf (1926). Logik der Morphologie im Rahmen einer Logik der gesamten Biologie. Springer-Verlag. p. 127. ISBN 978-3-642-50733-5.
  9. ^ Naik, V. N. (1984). Taxonomy of Angiosperms. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill. p. 2.
  10. ^ ICZN (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Glossary Archived 2005-01-03 at the Wayback Machine. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

External links

  • The dictionary definition of taxon at Wiktionary
This page was last edited on 11 April 2024, at 19:05
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.