Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,039

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A revised six-kingdom system of life

CAVALIER-SMITH, T.·1998·Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
DOI 10.1017/s0006323198005167
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A revised six-kingdom system of life is presented, down to the level of infraphylum. As in my 1983 system Bacteria are treated as a single kingdom, and eukaryotes are divided into only five kingdoms: Protozoa, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae and Chromista. Intermediate high level categories (superkingdom, subkingdom, branch, infrakingdom, superphylum, subphylum and infraphylum) are extensively used to avoid splitting organisms into an excessive number of kingdoms and phyla (60 only being recognized). The two 'zoological' kingdoms, Protozoa and Animalia, are subject to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the kingdom Bacteria to the International Code of Bacteriological Nomenclature, and the three 'botanical' kingdoms (Plantae, Fungi, Chromista) to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Circumscriptions of the kingdoms Bacteria and Plantae remain unchanged since Cavalier-Smith (1981). The kingdom Fungi is expanded by adding Microsporidia, because of protein sequence evidence that these amitochondrial intracellular parasites are related to conventional Fungi, not Protozoa. Fungi are subdivided into four phyla and 20 classes; fungal classification at the rank of subclass and above is comprehensively revised. The kingdoms Protozoa and Animalia are modified in the light of molecular phylogenetic evidence that Myxozoa are actually Animalia, not Protozoa, and that mesozoans are related to bilaterian animals. Animalia are divided into four subkingdoms: Radiata (phyla Porifera, Cnidaria, Placozoa, Ctenophora), Myxozoa, Mesozoa and Bilateria (bilateral animals: all other phyla). Several new higher level groupings are made in the animal kingdom including three new phyla: Acanthognatha (rotifers, acanthocephalans, gastrotrichs, gnathostomulids), Brachiozoa (brachiopods and phoronids) and Lobopoda (onychophorans and tardigrades), so only 23 animal phyla are recognized. Archezoa, here restricted to the phyla Metamonada and Trichozoa, are treated as a subkingdom within Protozoa, as in my 1983 six-kingdom system, not as a separate kingdom. The recently revised phylum Rhizopoda is modified further by adding more flagellates and removing some 'rhizopods' and is therefore renamed Cercozoa. The number of protozoan phyla is reduced by grouping Mycetozoa and Archamoebae (both now infraphyla) as a new subphylum Conosa within the phylum Amoebozoa alongside the subphylum Lobosa, which now includes both the traditional aerobic lobosean amoebae and Multicilia. Haplosporidia and the (formerly microsporidian) metchnikovellids are now both placed within the phylum Sporozoa. These changes make a total of only 13 currently recognized protozoan phyla, which are grouped into two subkingdoms: Archezoa and Neozoa the latter is modified in circumscription by adding the Discicristata, a new infrakingdom comprising the phyla Percolozoa and Euglenozoa). These changes are discussed in relation to the principles of megasystematics, here defined as systematics that concentrates on the higher levels of classes, phyla, and kingdoms. These principles also make it desirable to rank Archaebacteria as an infrakingdom of the kingdom Bacteria, not as a separate kingdom. Archaebacteria are grouped with the infrakingdom Posibacteria to form a new subkingdom, Unibacteria, comprising all bacteria bounded by a single membrane. The bacterial subkingdom Negibacteria, with separate cytoplasmic and outer membranes, is subdivided into two infrakingdoms: Lipobacteria, which lack lipopolysaccharide and have only phospholipids in the outer membrane, and Glycobacteria, with lipopolysaccharides in the outer leaflet of the outer membrane and phospholipids in its inner leaflet. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0006323198005167

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
CAVALIER-SMITH, T.
Venue
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-08
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
203-266
ISSN
0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1017/s0006323198005167
OpenAlex
W2105827326
Cited by
1,039
References
9
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.