Taxonomic revisions

This section reviews the different cell types reported for the six Phaeocystis species which are considered here according to their revised taxonomic status as recommended by Baumann et al. (1994), Medlin et al. (1994) and Vaulot et al. (1994). This is particularly relevant for the species globosa, which has long been referred to as pouchetii in the previous literature (e.g., Parke etal. 1971 Kayser 1970 Admiraal and Venek-amp 1986 Veldhuis et al. 1991 Davidson and Marchant 1992a). The seasonal distribution of the different cell types in the natural environment will also be considered in order to assess their role in the life cycle. 

Taxonomic nomenclatures for plants and animals are under constant revision. In the Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment series, the author elected to conform as much as possible to the systems and spellings used by Scott and Wasser (1980) for plants, Swain and Swain (1948) for insects, Turgeon et al. (1988) for aquatic molluscs, Williams et al. (1989) for decapod crustaceans, Pratt (1935) and Hyman (1940, 1951a, 1951b, 1955) for miscellaneous invertebrates, Robins et al. (1991) for fishes, Ditmars (1966) for reptiles, Edwards (1974) and Howard and Moore (1991) for birds, and Nowak and Paradiso (1983) for mammals. Individual species are arranged alphabetically by scientific and common names (Table 33.2). In total, about 2300 species of animals and plants were cited, of which only 23 (1.0%) were listed in at least 20 chapters. The most widely cited species include ... 

T. Proeschold, B. Marin, UG. Schlosser, M. Melkonian (2001) Molecular phytogeny and taxonomic revision of Chlamydomonas (Chlorophyta). Protist, 152 265-300... 

DNA/DNA hybridization studies indicate a taxonomic revision for these three species is in order. Even though these species produce spores (unpublished results) they bear no genetic similarity to C. thermocellum. 

Mitchell, K.A., Markham, K.R., and Bayly, M.J., Flavonoid characters contributing to the taxonomic revision of the Hebe parviflora complex. Phytochemistry, 56, 453, 2001. 

On a wider taxonomic canvas, recent taxonomic revisions of the animal kingdom... 

Thompson, R.C.A. and McManus, D.P. (2002) Towards a taxonomic revision of the genus Echinococcus. Trends in Parasitology 18, 452-457. 

Both authors would like to thank Professor J.H.S. Blaxter for the original invitation to write this review and Professor A. J. Southward for his assistance through many revisions. Mr C. Silver generously helped in conversion of the early computer files to IBM format, and redrafted many of the diagrams. Dr Eve Southward helped correct the references and taxonomic details. Last but not least, both authors thank their wives, Svetlana and Muriel, for their support during this arduous undertaking. 

Binns, S., Baum, B., and Arnason, J. 2002a. A taxonomic revision of Echinacea (Asteraceae Heliantheae). Syst. Bot. 27, 610-632. 

With few exceptions, all the promoter regions contain the consensus sequence TTTA /tA. There are some indications that minor variations in this sequence motif occur in different orders of the hyperthermophiles but it is difficult to assess how significant this is given the relatively small number of sequences available. This is complicated further by recent analyses of the phylogeny of the hyperthermophiles based on partial 23 S rRNA sequences [40] which suggest that the taxonomic classification in Table 1 needs revision (see section 7). For many promoters the A-T-rich motif is longer than 5-6 base pairs indeed, for the Mt. fervidus genes it extends to 14-15 consecutive A-T pairs (Table 4). 

Types do have advantages. Suppose that you are doing a revision of a genus. When you are finished you will have made piles of specimens and lists of literature references of which you are quite certain that they belong to them. These piles (you think). represent distinct species. Now what are you going to call them Note that a taxonomic revision came before this questioni (See mantra above). In principle this is easyt you check each pile for the presence of a type at the specific ranki if there is only one, that is the name to be used. If there are several you take the oldest one, if there... 

Driver F, Milner RJ, Trueman JWH. A taxonomic revision of Metarhizium based on phylogenetic analysis of rDNA sequence data. Mycol Res 104 134-150, 2000. 

Morphological distinction of molecular types in Ammonia - towards a taxonomic revision of the world s most commonly misidentified foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology, 50, 237-271. 

Acronycine (1.) is a natural alkaloid which was first isolated in 1948 from the bark of a small Australian Rutaceous tree, Acronychia baueri Schott (1). Since that time, the status of this plant within the Rutaceae family has been revised several times, in the course of successive taxonomic studies (2-5). It is now widely accepted that the plant belongs to the genus Sarcomelicope and should be named Sarcomelicope simplicifolia (Endl.) Hartley ssp. simplicifolia (4). 

Lockwood, T.E. 1973A. A Taxonomic Revision ofBruffnansia (Solanaceae). Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, ma. 

Previous editions of Selective Toxicity have been well received, and translated into German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian. This new edition, which reviews the literature up to September 1984, has been thoroughly revised to reflect current awareness of the subject. Many additions have been made, some of them quite substantial, but all blended into the original framework. There are new sections on drugs that influence the immune process, on inhibitors based on the transition state of the molecule, and on IMBIs, which are the irreversible mechanism-based inhibitors. There are new taxonomic tables of bacteria and protozoa, and an index of the 650 structural formulae used in the text. A new section (17.4) provides help in searching for the physical and biological properties of drugs, whether in compilations (books) or in computerized databanks. 

Vandiemenia ratkowskiana Hewson (Marchantiophyta) a revised description and reassessment of its taxonomic status. Journal of Bryology 30, 48-54. 

---