A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification

There has been a progression in palaeobiological classifications from the more primitive empirical “stamp collecting” stage where similar shapes were grouped together, to the more sophisticated phylogenetic classifications where supposed genetically related foraminiferal taxa are categorised togethe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Micropalaeontology
Main Author: Jenkins, D. Graham
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36
https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/
id ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:jm65196
record_format openpolar
spelling ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:jm65196 2023-05-15T18:00:58+02:00 A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification Jenkins, D. Graham 2018-09-27 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/ eng eng doi:10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/ eISSN: 2041-4978 Text 2018 ftcopernicus https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 2020-07-20T16:28:20Z There has been a progression in palaeobiological classifications from the more primitive empirical “stamp collecting” stage where similar shapes were grouped together, to the more sophisticated phylogenetic classifications where supposed genetically related foraminiferal taxa are categorised together. But how do we know that certain extinct taxa were genetically related? This is a major problem where a number of factors interplay together: a belief in evolution, the experience of the operator and consequent recognition of phyletic lineages. In the study of Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera we are fortunate to have recognised a number of now well established lineages; also we have some data on amino-acids found in the tests of living species (King and Hare, 1972) which range back well into the Neogene. These latter data not only provide us with essential genetic information but they also give us confidence when dealing with the classification of extinct species. So how do we build this evolutionary knowledge into a classification? Clearly, genetically related species can be grouped together into subgenera, and related subgenera into broader genera. In their classification Loeblich and Tappan (1988) held a different view and decided not to use subgenera because (1) their usage produces an unwieldy classification, and (2) lineage concepts change when additional data are collected. If we follow their classification, then when you read about Globorotalia menardii, Globorotalia fohsi and Globorotalia hirsuta you could assume that they are closely related; this is not true. The three species have similar test morphologies but these have resulted from iterative. . . Text Planktonic foraminifera Copernicus Publications: E-Journals Journal of Micropalaeontology 9 1 36 36
institution Open Polar
collection Copernicus Publications: E-Journals
op_collection_id ftcopernicus
language English
description There has been a progression in palaeobiological classifications from the more primitive empirical “stamp collecting” stage where similar shapes were grouped together, to the more sophisticated phylogenetic classifications where supposed genetically related foraminiferal taxa are categorised together. But how do we know that certain extinct taxa were genetically related? This is a major problem where a number of factors interplay together: a belief in evolution, the experience of the operator and consequent recognition of phyletic lineages. In the study of Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera we are fortunate to have recognised a number of now well established lineages; also we have some data on amino-acids found in the tests of living species (King and Hare, 1972) which range back well into the Neogene. These latter data not only provide us with essential genetic information but they also give us confidence when dealing with the classification of extinct species. So how do we build this evolutionary knowledge into a classification? Clearly, genetically related species can be grouped together into subgenera, and related subgenera into broader genera. In their classification Loeblich and Tappan (1988) held a different view and decided not to use subgenera because (1) their usage produces an unwieldy classification, and (2) lineage concepts change when additional data are collected. If we follow their classification, then when you read about Globorotalia menardii, Globorotalia fohsi and Globorotalia hirsuta you could assume that they are closely related; this is not true. The three species have similar test morphologies but these have resulted from iterative. . .
format Text
author Jenkins, D. Graham
spellingShingle Jenkins, D. Graham
A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
author_facet Jenkins, D. Graham
author_sort Jenkins, D. Graham
title A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
title_short A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
title_full A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
title_fullStr A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
title_full_unstemmed A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
title_sort case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification
publishDate 2018
url https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36
https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/
genre Planktonic foraminifera
genre_facet Planktonic foraminifera
op_source eISSN: 2041-4978
op_relation doi:10.1144/jm.9.1.36
https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36
container_title Journal of Micropalaeontology
container_volume 9
container_issue 1
container_start_page 36
op_container_end_page 36
_version_ 1766170262309437440