| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tmkeesey Site Admin
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 287 Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted: Thu 24 Aug, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: Definition of Eukaryota? |
|
|
Have any definitions of this clade been published? It seems like a pretty good case for an apomorphy-based definition (presence of cell nucleus).
Is "Eukaryota" the best form of the name? I have also seen "Eucarya", "Eucaryota", and "Eukarya". _________________ T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology, Exopolis, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Marjanović
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 137 Location: currently Paris
|
Posted: Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. No idea.
2. Apomorphy looks fine.
3. No idea, except that c vs k is a matter of taste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tmkeesey Site Admin
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 287 Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted: Fri 25 Aug, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I almost forgot "Eukaryotae" and "Eucaryotae".
Not sure which form was published first. FWIW, here's how Google ranks their popularity:- "Eukaryota" (4,400,000)
- "Eukarya" (578,000)
- "Eucarya" (177,000)
- "Eukaryotae" (67,100)
- "Eucaryota" (37,700)
- "Eucaryotae" (777)
_________________ T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology, Exopolis, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
leowsham
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 69 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sat 16 Sep, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: Eukaryota |
|
|
Wasn't Eukaryota first coined as a rank based "domain"? I'm not sure if anyone subsequently defined it phylogenetically... _________________ vivat scientia !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tmkeesey Site Admin
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 287 Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted: Sat 16 Sep, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but it clearly refers to a clade. _________________ T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology, Exopolis, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phyllo
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 1 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon 05 Mar, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: the reference to eukaryota |
|
|
Hi
Well, by coincidence I stumbled upon a web-page showing the reference you asked for (according to the authors of the web-page)
It was dear old Chatton that named Eukaryota in 1925. And here is the link:
http://www.algaebase.org/taxonomy.lasso?id=86701&-session=abv3:51E3526B076c73385DGUnWDD6DCF
Chatton did a really nice work in protists which he contributed in the bookseries Traite de Zoologie and the volume of dinoflagellates (unfortunately I dont read french, but there is always pictures;-)
if you dont look the web-page up: here it comes:
"Original publication: Chatton, É. (1925). Pansporella perplexa, amoebiens à spores protégées parasite de daphnies. Réflections sur la biologie et la phylogénie des protozoaires. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, Série 10 8: 5-84." _________________ --------------------
Fredrik Norén (PhD)
Marine biology consultant
- protists and plankton -
www.n-research.se |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tmkeesey Site Admin
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 287 Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link. Well, looks like "Eukaryota" wins by popularity and priority. _________________ T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology, Exopolis, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|