Bibliography in the British Museum (Natural History)

NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS: A HISTORICAL BOTANICAL STANDPOINT

Is Myxomycetes (Amoebozoa) a Truly Ambiregnal Group? A Major Issue in Protist Nomenclature

Gordon John Howes 1938-2013 (Fish Systematist)

To the Editor: Our 2002 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases about nomenclature changes for organisms in the genus Pneumocystis (1) has been widely cited and probably will remain a source for persons seeking information about this subject. Therefore, we need to correct an error in 1 of the species names presented in our article and in the 1999 article by Frenkel (2) on which our article was based. In the 1999 article, Frenkel proposed that the species of Pneumocystis found in humans be named to honor the Czech parasitologist, Otto Jirovec. The 1999 article was his second proposal for this change. In 1976, he first named the human pathogen Pneumocystis jiroveci (3), at which time it was classified as a protozoan and therefore named according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. By 1999, it had become clear that the organisms in the genus Pneumocystis are fungi, which are named according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) (4). Differences between the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and ICBN resulted in the realization of an error in the species epithet proposed by Frenkel in 1999, and our 2002 article contained this error. Frenkel’s 1999 article should have modified the species epithet from “jiroveci” to “jirovecii,” (ICBN Articles 32.7 and 60.11 and Rec. 60C.1b). The correct and valid name under ICBN is Pneumocystis jirovecii. Redhead et al. further explain the basis for this correction (5).

(258–260) Proposals to eliminate contradiction between Articles 11.7 and 11.8 and to equate non‐fossil with fossil names of dinophytes for purposes of priority

Those who pass along Cromwell Road, South Kensington, will not fail to observe on the site of the former International Exhibition, a stately building rising from the ground under the superintending genius of Mr. Waterhouse. The contractors have labelled it “The Museum of Natural History,” but when the building is completed (which will be the case in November, 1877, according to the Office of Works) it may “surprise” our readers to be told that there will be no “Natural History” to put into it. The Natural History Collections in the British Museum—which are commonly supposed to be national property—belong not to the people of England nor to the “Government,” but to fifty “Trustees” who are obliged by statute to keep them in Great Russell Street, and nowhere else. In order to enable these collections to be removed to South Kensington when the new building is ready to receive them, it will be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament discharging the Trustees from their present statutory duties and enacting others applicable to the new site. Now the Royal Commissioners on Science, who have recently terminated their labours, have devoted a good deal of time and attention to this branch of their subject. They have come to the conclusion that the removal of the Natural History Collections to another building will be a good opportunity for effecting a radical change in their administration, which, as it is now conducted, is by no means satisfactory either to men of science or to the public. It must be recollected that the British Museum was originally instituted as a great public library, to which the collections of art and science were considered merely as appendages. The director of the whole institution is still called the “Principal Librarian,” and even up to a recent period the whole of the staff, even in the scientific departments, was classified under the fiction that they were “assistants” in the Library. The consequence of this leading idea is that everything in the British Museum, even up to the present time, is sacrificed to the extension and glorification of a single department. The Natural History Collections have, it is true, a nominal head, and a very eminent person he is, but Prof. Owen has nothing to do with the government of the institution, and has not even access to the trustees when they meet in solemn conclave. All he can do, when anything is wanted or something goes wrong in one of the Natural History Departments, is to approach the trustees through the principal librarian, an excellent individual, no doubt, but a gentleman entirely unacquainted with natural science and its requirements. It will be easily imagined, therefore, that under this system everything is sacrificed to the Library. The head-executive officer, naturally enough, thinks that his own branch of the business is of by far the greatest importance, and that everything else should knock under to it. As an illustration of this fact we have only to turn to the Civil Service Estimates for the current year. It will be found that 10,000l., is to be spent upon the purchase of printed books for the British Museum although copies of all those published in the United Kingdom are obtained gratis, whereas the miserable pittance of 1,200l. is allowed for zoological specimens, 800l. for fossils, and 400l. for botany! It may be alleged by the trustees that these amounts are sufficient, but the contrary is notoriously the case. The general level of the zoological and botanical collections in the British Museum is undoubtedly far below what it ought to be. The finest specimens in nearly every department of natural history fall into the hands of amateurs because the National Collection is so badly supplied with funds for purchases of this kind. No dealer would think of offering a new butterfly or a new hummingbird to the British Museum. With the former he would go to Mr. Hewitson with the latter to Mr. Gould. Again, the staff of officers in the Natural History Departments is inadequate in point of numbers. Their salaries likewise are much below those of other branches of the Civil Service, and quite insufficient for the duties expected of them. Hence it follows that there is little temptation for young men of ability and education to accept such a career. These deficiencies might have been remedied long ago if the trustees had been content to give up their patronage. But the right of presentation to all places in the British Museum is vested by statute in the three principal trustees, and the Government, naturally enough, declines to increase the value of appointments over which they have no sort of control.

In this article, environmental and climate practices in science and natural history museums in Türkiye are presented and discussed. While environmental and climate problems are global issues, they have local roots. As environmental issues are related to human activities and museums play a societal role, it is important to examine practices and approaches of museums in relation to the environment. Operations and practices of natural history and science museums in Türkiye, including educational activities, are important elements in communicating the risks of vulnerable environmental issue. This study outlines the environmental practices of the science and natural history museums of Türkiye which are commonly accepted as reliable providers of information to engage with audiences for action towards environmental challenges. Documentary research was conducted for the study. When the environmental practices and approaches are reviewed, it is seen that natural history museums function basically as research areas. Still, they have public education roles and organize educational activities about natural history, biodiversity and environment. While public education is one of the roles of natural history museums besides their conventional functions like collecting, conserving, researching and exhibiting, science centers are institutions dedicated to public education. Since science centers are mostly supported by municipalities, it can be said that they operate in a more sustainable and holistic way. Also, it is seen that their environmental reach-out programs offer a wider range. Based on data, we claim that collaboration with municipalities has an effect on the environmental activities and perspectives of museums. Also, climate-context works encourage museum community to make interdisciplinary works across the world. By presenting the current environmental and climate practices in natural history and science museums in Türkiye, it is aimed that the article can provide collaboration among institutions and advance the discussions among museums in the context of environment and climate.

Voyage of Ben Cao, Part II: Development of Chinese Medicinal Specimens in the British Museum

A proposal is submitted to the ICSP to change the wording of General Consideration 5 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), deleting the words Schizophycetes, Cyanophyceae and Cyanobacteria from the groups of organisms whose nomenclature is covered by the Code. It is further proposed to change the terms Zoological Code and International Code of Botanical Nomenclature in General Consideration 5 and in Principle 2 to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, respectively.

The typographical layout of the present Draft conforms to that of the International code of botanical nomenclature (Tokyo Code) (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994, abbreviated ICBN hereafter) and therefore differs from the usual Taxon style, and also from that of the current editions of the International code of zoological nomenclature (Ride & al., London, 1985: the ICZN) and of the International code of nomenclature of bacteria (Lapage & al., Washington, 1992: the BC). The Draft does not yet include Recommendations, Notes, or Examples. For further relevant explanations, botanists may find it useful to refer to the Introductory comments by Greuter & Nicolson (in Taxon 45: 343-348. 1996), a document initially prepared for the benefit of members of the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature, now published in a slightly updated form. A set of explanatory Notes addressed to all biologists interested in nomenclatural matters is in preparation and expected to be ready for distribution at a half-day symposium on The New Bionomenclature at the Fifth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) in Budapest, 17-24 August 1996 (see Hawksworth in Taxon 44: 447-456. 1995). To help all interested biologists who wish to compare the proposed new rules with the corresponding entries in the current Codes (BC, ICBN, ICZN), cross-references

Zoologica ScriptaVolume 36, Issue 6 p. 623-623 Free Access Corrigendum This article corrects the following: Notothrix halsei gen. n., sp. n., representative of a new family of freshwater cladocerans (Branchiopoda, Anomopoda) from SW Australia, with a discussion of ancestral traits and a preliminary molecular phylogeny of the order Kay Van Damme, Russell J. Shiel, H. J. Dumont, Volume 36Issue 5Zoologica Scripta pages: 465-487 First Published online: September 4, 2007 First published: 01 October 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2007.00304.xCitations: 2AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Gondwanotrichidae nom. nov. pro Nototrichidae Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007 The authors (Van Damme et al.) of the paper ‘Notothrix halsei gen. n., sp. n., representative of a new family of freshwater cladocerans (Branchiopoda, Anomopoda) from SW Australia, with a discussion of ancestral traits and a preliminary molecular phylogeny of the order’ have alerted us to an error in their paper. The correction follows: In the previous issue of Zoologica Scripta [36(5): 465–487], we described a new monotypic family of Anomopoda (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) from SW Australia and named it as the Nototrichidae. However, the name of the type genus Notothrix Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007 turns out to be a junior homonym of the turbellarian genus Notothrix Hickman, 1955. Although the taxon described by Hickman (1955) was later synonymized with Umagilla Wahl, 1909 (Cannon 1987), this name remains available and therefore Notothrix Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007 is a junior homonym. As Notothrix Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007 is the type genus of the Nototrichidae Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007, the family name too becomes invalid, according to Article 39 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999): ‘The name of a family group taxon is invalid if the name of its type genus is a junior homonym ...’. There are no synonyms for the type genus of the Nototrichidae. Therefore, we propose a new replacement name (nomen novum) for both the genus and the family. This is a strict nomenclatural issue that has further no effects on the content of the original paper. Family Gondwanotrichidae nom. nov. pro Nototrichidae Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007; diagnosis and description as in original publication. Type genus. Gondwanothrix nom. nov. pro Notothrix Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007 non Hickman, 1955. Type species. Notothrix halsei Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007. = Gondwanothrix halsei (Van Damme, Shiel & Dumont, 2007). Etymology. The name ‘Gondwanothrix’ consists of the prefix ‘Gondwano-’, referring to Gondwanaland, the supercontinent of the southern hemisphere that existed until its break-up in the Mesozoic, as we believe that this is one of the most primitive extant anomopods, dating back at least to that era (Van Damme et al. 2007). The word ‘thrix’ refers to the long setae on the posteroventral valve corner and the long spines on the postabdomen; the epitheton ‘halsei’ remains. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Steve Tracey and Dr Andrew Polaszek at the ICZN Secretariat for help and constructive advice. References Cannon, L. R. G. (1987). Two new rhabdocoel turbellarians, Umagilla pacifica sp. n. and U. karlingi sp. n. (Umagillidae), endosymbiotic with holothurians (Echinodermata) from the Great Barrier Reef and a discussion of sclerotic structures in the female system of the Umagillidae. Zoologica Scripta, 16 (4), 297– 303. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hickman, V. V. (1955). Two new rhabdocoel turbellarians parasitic in Tasmania holothurians. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, 89, 81– 97. Google Scholar International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th edn. Published by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, London, UK. URL: http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp . Google Scholar Van Damme, K., Shiel, R. J. & Dumont, H. J. (2007). Notothrix halsei gen. n., sp. n., representative of a new family of freshwater cladocerans (Branchiopoda, Anomopoda) from SW Australia, with a discussion of ancestral traits and a preliminary molecular phylogeny of the order. Zoologica Scripta, 36 (5), 465– 487. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume36, Issue6November 2007Pages 623-623 ReferencesRelatedInformation

To the Editor: The proposal by Stringer et al. to change the name of Pneumocystis carinii found in humans to Pneumocystis jirovec requires critical consideration (1). First, their rationale for the choice of Jirovec is not compelling. Principle III of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) states: “the nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication” (2). Jirovec’s publication in 1952 was not the first to report P. carinii infection in human lungs. In 1942, two Dutch investigators, van der Meer and Brug, described P. carinii as the infecting organism in a 3-month-old infant with congenital heart disease and in 2 of 104 autopsy cases (a 4-month-old infant and a 21-year-old adult) (3). Their description, photomicrographs, and drawings of P. carinii are unequivocal. They also described the typical “honeycomb” patterns in alveoli. In 1951, Dr. Josef Vanek at Karls-Universitat in Praha, Czechoslovakia, reported his study of lung sections from 16 children with interstitial pneumonia and demonstrated that the disease was caused by P. carinii (4). Vanek notes in his report, “In man the parasite was for the first time established as a cause of pneumonia in a child by G. Meer and S. L. Brug (1942).” In 1952, Jirovec reported P. carinii as the cause of interstitial plasmacellular pneumonia in neonates (5). A year later, in a coauthored publication, Vanek, Jirovec, and J. Lukes acknowledged and referenced the earlier reports of van der Meer and Brug and Vanek (6). If principle III is to be followed, as well as fairness to the investigators, both van der Meer and Brug and Vanek hold priority over Jirovec, assuming the designation of the species name should be based on the name of the first person to discover P. carinii in humans. The nomenclature of P. carinii has actually been fraught with errors from the beginning. In the earliest publications, Carlos Chagas and Antonio Carini mistook the organism for stages in the life cycle of trypanosomes. Chagas placed it in a new genus, Schizotrypanum (7,8). In 1912, Delanoe and Delanoe at the Pasteur Institute in Paris published the first description of the organism as a new entity unrelated to trypanosomes (9). They proposed the name “Pneumocystis carinii” as a tribute to Carini. The Delanoe paper has remained unchallenged as the original description of P. carinii. Both Chagas and Carini later acknowledged their errors and the validity of the Delanoes’ conclusion. By current ICBN principles, P. carinii is acceptable nomenclature because the authors of the first publication proposed the name of Carini, rather than their own. In addition, changing the name to P. jiroveci will create confusion in clinical medicine where the name P. carinii has served physicians and microbiologists well for over half a century. I was moved to write this letter because of a call from a knowledgeable oncologist asking for information on “the new strain of P. carinii that has just been reported from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” referring to the report by Stringer et al (1). AIDS patients are well informed about P. carinii pneumonia and avidly monitor medical news about their disease. Without doubt, the name change will cause confusion and undue anxiety among the many thousands of HIV-infected patients who attend clinics. Health-care workers will have an added burden of explaining why the name was changed, but the organism and infection are unchanged. Also, versions of the pronunciation of jiroveci (yee row vet zee) by American patients, physicians, and health-care workers will be interesting to hear. The tone of the article by Stringer et al. implies that the change of P. carinii to P. jiroveci is final, which is not the case. The nomenclature of fungi is governed by ICBN under the auspices of the International Botanical Congress and is not based solely on molecular genetics. Neither P. carinii nor P. jiroveci have been submitted for ICBN scrutiny. In another paper, Stringer et al. outline the mechanics for submission, but indicate that no application has been submitted for their proposal (10). In fact, P. carinii has not been acknowledged as a fungus by ICBN or any other authoritative taxonomic system. Only when nomenclature is registered in ICBN, can a name be referred to as “formally accepted.” In the meantime, the workable terminology proposed earlier by Stringer et al. in 1994 (11) will suffice for clinical use.

In the July issue of Journal of Paleontology, 84(4), Sánchez (2010) proposed the new genus nameEmiliodontafor the Ordovician bivalve genusEmilianiaSánchez, 1999 because of assumed homonymy withEmilianiaHay and Mohler, 1967 (in Hay et al., 1967). The supposed senior name, the genusEmilianiaHay and Mohler, belongs to the coccolithophores, a group of unicellular eukaryotic algae, which have traditionally been treated as plants (e.g., Glaessner, 1945; Tappan, 1980; see also Green and Jordan, 1994; Andersen, 2004 for modern classification) and to which the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) applies. In the original description ofEmilianiaHay and Molher the ICBN was used (Hay et al., 1967, p. 447) and the name was validly published under its rules. Animals such as the bivalveEmilianiaSánchez, 1999, in contrast, are treated under the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Both codes are independent (ICBN, Principle I: Greuter et al., 1993, 2000; McNeill et al., 2006; ICZN Article 1: Ride et al., 1985, 1999), and therefore the same names (“homonyms” sensu lato) can coexist under different codes. Consequently,EmilianiaSánchez andEmilianiaHay and Molher are not homonyms in a taxonomic sense but are both legitimate names under the respective code. Furthermore, the nameEmiliodontaSánchez 2010 is superfluous and illegitimate, as “[…] the name of an animal taxon is not to be rejected merely because it is identical with the name of a taxon that is not animal.” (ICZN Article 1.4: Ride et al., 1999).

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)

ABSTRACTA 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, Ghromista) 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 andMulticilia. 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. This primary grouping of the 10 bacterial phyla into subkingdoms is based on the number of cell‐envelope membranes, whilst their subdivision into infrakingdoms emphasises their membrane chemistry; definition of the negibacterial phyla, five at least partly photosynthetic, relies chiefly on photosynthetic mechanism and cell‐envelope structure and chemistry corroborated by ribosomal RNA phylogeny. The kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista are slightly changed in circumscription by transferring subphylum Opalinata (classes Opalinea, Proteromonadea, Blastocystea cl. nov.) from Protozoa into infrakingdom Heterokonta of the kingdom Chromista. Opalinata are grouped with the subphylum Pseudofungi and the zooflagellateDevelopayella elegans(in a new subphylum Bigyromonada) to form a new botanical phylum (Bigyra) of heterotrophs with a double ciliary transitional helix, making it necessary to abandon the phylum name Opalozoa, which formerly included Opalinata. The loss of ciliary retronemes in Opalinata is attributed to their evolution of gut commensalism. The nature of the ancestral chromist is discussed in the light of recent phylogenetic evidence.