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...
Published in: | Journal of Micropalaeontology |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
GSL Publishing
1990
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00038391 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00038069/jm-9-36-1990.pdf https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/jm-9-36-1990.pdf |
id |
ftnonlinearchiv:oai:noa.gwlb.de:cop_mods_00038391 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftnonlinearchiv:oai:noa.gwlb.de:cop_mods_00038391 2023-05-15T18:00:59+02:00 A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification Jenkins, D. Graham 1990-07 electronic https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00038391 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00038069/jm-9-36-1990.pdf https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/jm-9-36-1990.pdf eng eng GSL Publishing Journal of Micropalaeontology -- http://www.bibliothek.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/?2053393 -- https://www.j-micropalaeontol.net/volumes.html -- http://jm.geoscienceworld.org/ -- 2041-4978 https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00038391 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00038069/jm-9-36-1990.pdf https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/jm-9-36-1990.pdf https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ uneingeschränkt info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC-BY article Verlagsveröffentlichung article Text doc-type:article 1990 ftnonlinearchiv https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 2022-02-08T22:43:06Z 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. . . Article in Journal/Newspaper Planktonic foraminifera Niedersächsisches Online-Archiv NOA Journal of Micropalaeontology 9 1 36 36 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Niedersächsisches Online-Archiv NOA |
op_collection_id |
ftnonlinearchiv |
language |
English |
topic |
article Verlagsveröffentlichung |
spellingShingle |
article Verlagsveröffentlichung Jenkins, D. Graham A case for subgenera in a foraminiferal classification |
topic_facet |
article Verlagsveröffentlichung |
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 |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Jenkins, D. Graham |
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 |
publisher |
GSL Publishing |
publishDate |
1990 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00038391 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00038069/jm-9-36-1990.pdf https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/jm-9-36-1990.pdf |
genre |
Planktonic foraminifera |
genre_facet |
Planktonic foraminifera |
op_relation |
Journal of Micropalaeontology -- http://www.bibliothek.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/?2053393 -- https://www.j-micropalaeontol.net/volumes.html -- http://jm.geoscienceworld.org/ -- 2041-4978 https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.9.1.36 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00038391 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00038069/jm-9-36-1990.pdf https://jm.copernicus.org/articles/9/36/1990/jm-9-36-1990.pdf |
op_rights |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ uneingeschränkt info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
op_rightsnorm |
CC-BY |
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_ |
1766170291622379520 |